[0:05] I guess that's close enough to four to

[0:07] call it a thing.

[0:10] Uh,

[0:11] >> wait a couple seconds.

[0:12] >> Okay, nitpicker.

[0:14] >> Shelly might show up.

[0:15] >> That's true.

[0:27] Okay, you're probably good.

[0:30] Thanks.

[0:33] We call to order the Monday, April 27th,

[0:36] 2026,

[0:38] Manaste City Zoning Board of Appeals

[0:41] meeting. We have a couple of variances

[0:44] on the agenda today.

[0:46] Uh going to call the meeting to order

[0:49] and ask the clerk to take role, please.

[0:53] >> Board member Johnson,

[0:54] >> yes.

[0:55] >> Board member Dworth,

[0:56] >> here. Uh, Vice Chair Drain

[0:59] >> here

[1:00] >> and Chair Spalding

[1:01] >> speaking here. Present,

[1:05] >> one absence.

[1:07] >> And one absence. Uh, board member member

[1:10] two.

[1:11] >> Correct.

[1:15] » Next on our agenda is the election of

[1:17] officers.

[1:19] There are there any nominations?

[1:22] In what order do you want to take them?

[1:24] Vice chair and then chair or chair?

[1:25] I'll Jackie take nominations for

[1:28] chair and then the chair will take

[1:29] nominations for vice chair.

[1:31] >> I would nominate party for chair.

[1:33] >> Support.

[1:36] >> That was like water going downhill,

[1:37] wasn't it?

[1:39] >> Any other nominations?

[1:42] >> No.

[1:45] >> Thanks, guys.

[1:45] >> You're welcome.

[1:47] >> Uh clerk can take role.

[1:51] >> Board member Johnson.

[1:52] >> Yes.

[1:53] >> Board member Dworth.

[1:54] >> Yes.

[1:56] Vice Chair Duang.

[1:58] >> Yes.

[1:58] >> And chair member Spalding.

[2:00] >> Yes.

[2:04] » And for Vice Chair, do we have

[2:05] nominations?

[2:10] » Like to nominee.

[2:12] >> Hold the frame.

[2:13] >> Yep.

[2:14] >> Any other nominations?

[2:17] >> We'll close that and they can take

[2:22] the roll call on that.

[2:23] >> Okay. Board member Johnson. Yes.

[2:25] >> Uh, board member Dworth.

[2:27] >> Yes.

[2:28] >> Vice Chair Defrain.

[2:29] >> Yes.

[2:30] >> And Chair Spalding.

[2:31] >> Yes.

[2:35] » All right. Back in the saddle for

[2:37] another year. Approval of the agenda. We

[2:38] had our last meeting.

[2:41] >> Oh. Uh, secretary to not, uh, elect

[2:45] Jackie as your recording secretary.

[2:48] >> We need a nomination.

[2:50] Would you like to nominate our

[2:53] secretary?

[2:55] >> Well, technically I think it's a one of

[2:57] us is elected secretary and then

[3:00] >> and then you'll nominate

[3:01] >> and then we

[3:04] staff

[3:04] >> like to nominate Bunny for secretary.

[3:07] >> Dan, would you forget? You're too slow.

[3:11] >> I would second that.

[3:15] » Okay.

[3:16] >> Vote, please.

[3:16] >> Um, okay. Board member Johnson.

[3:20] Board member Dworth.

[3:22] >> Yes.

[3:22] >> Vice Chair Defrain.

[3:24] >> Yes.

[3:24] >> And Cher Spalding.

[3:25] >> Yes.

[3:33] » Nominate Jackie to be the recording

[3:35] secretary.

[3:37] >> So moved.

[3:38] >> Second.

[3:42] >> Board member. Um and I accept. Uh board

[3:45] member Johnson.

[3:46] >> Yes.

[3:47] >> Uh board member Dworth.

[3:49] >> Yes. Vice Chair Drain,

[3:50] >> yes.

[3:51] >> And Chair Spalding,

[3:52] >> yes.

[3:55] Now, on to the approval of the agenda.

[3:59] We had a meeting in April 7th of 2025.

[4:04] >> Well, this is today's agenda.

[4:06] >> Oh, approve. Yes, correct. Approval of

[4:09] today's agenda.

[4:11] >> So moved. Second.

[4:14] Any discussion?

[4:18] I didn't take the call for that.

[4:21] >> Board member Johnson,

[4:22] >> yes.

[4:23] >> Board member Dillard,

[4:24] >> yes.

[4:25] >> Vice Chair Drain,

[4:26] >> yes.

[4:26] >> Chair Spalding,

[4:27] >> yes.

[4:29] Does any member have any conflicts of

[4:31] interest with anything on the agenda

[4:33] today?

[4:34] >> Nope.

[4:35] >> No. No. Not that I'm aware of. Now, for

[4:40] the third time, we'll try to get the

[4:41] minutes of the last meeting approved.

[4:43] Our last meeting, believe it or not, was

[4:46] April 7th of 2025.

[4:49] That's how active the zoning board of

[4:50] appeals is.

[4:52] So, we have a

[4:56] uh compilation of the proceedings of

[4:59] that hearing in front of us that we need

[5:02] to approve unless there is modification

[5:04] or correction to it.

[5:06] >> Motion to approve as presented.

[5:08] >> Second.

[5:09] >> Support.

[5:10] >> Any discussion?

[5:14] Board member. Board member Johnson.

[5:17] >> Yes.

[5:17] >> Board member Dworth.

[5:18] >> Yes.

[5:19] >> Vice Chair Defrain.

[5:20] >> Yes.

[5:20] >> And Cher Spalding.

[5:21] >> Yes.

[5:23] We are going to wave the site

[5:25] inspection. Everybody uh for purposes of

[5:28] the two variances before us today has

[5:30] had uh lots of opportunity on their own

[5:33] to do their own reconnaissance on this

[5:35] and study the issues.

[5:38] Uh next on our agenda is public hearing.

[5:41] We have two variances

[5:43] proposed before us today for a parcel at

[5:48] 91 Arthur Street in Manaste.

[5:51] Variances to sections 1814,

[5:54] section subsection C paragraph 4 and

[5:58] section 1814, subsection C paragraph 5.

[6:04] So we have a public hearing that we're

[6:06] going to open. Are we going to open

[6:08] these one at a time or are we going to

[6:09] open Okay, first we're going to open

[6:11] public hearing

[6:12] uh on the first of the variances which

[6:16] is subsection C paragraph 4 and the

[6:20] variance under consideration is that no

[6:22] billboard will be located within 660 ft

[6:26] of another billboard abutdding either

[6:28] side of the same highway which is US 31.

[6:32] If any member of the public would like

[6:34] to make a comment regarding uh that

[6:38] variance proposal, we're willing to hear

[6:41] that now.

[6:44] » Not seeing any.

[6:47] We'll move on to the public hearing.

[6:50] >> Do we need to address this?

[6:52] >> Yes.

[6:53] >> Okay.

[6:54] >> Hi, I'm Bridget.

[6:57] I own Wanderin along with my brother and

[6:59] Carrie. Um, and um, I just want to talk

[7:03] a second about this billboard. I don't

[7:06] have a dog in the fight about what this

[7:08] billboard ends up looking like. We when

[7:11] I bought this property way back when,

[7:14] um, I just want to give you a little

[7:15] history about this because we've had

[7:17] some public comments on social media

[7:19] about didn't you see the billboard? Yes,

[7:21] I saw the billboard. I know it was

[7:23] there. That's not that's not the the

[7:25] issue. What we didn't foresee was

[7:28] wandering growing and being as busy as

[7:30] it is. Um we're to a point now where if

[7:34] we don't do something to expand our

[7:37] dining area down the road or at least

[7:40] get where we can um enclose our patio,

[7:44] we're just running out of space. People

[7:46] are waiting two, three hours to get a

[7:48] spot to sit. Um, and it's becoming, you

[7:52] know, an issue for us with even at

[7:54] Christmas time having Christmas parties,

[7:56] letting families host um, events there,

[7:59] which we would like to do because it

[8:00] helps the um, helps the restaurant stay

[8:02] viable. Um, with this billboard, when I

[8:07] bought it, when it was the old Little

[8:08] Caesars um, building, when I initially

[8:11] spoke with Lamar, they said, "Yeah,

[8:13] we'll work with you to get whatever's

[8:15] done, get it moved, whatever."

[8:18] me. I've never dealt with a billboard

[8:20] before. Didn't have any clue that it had

[8:22] to go to this kind of, you know, extent

[8:24] to try to move a billboard. So, fast

[8:27] forward, we're sitting here. Um, we

[8:29] would love to enclose our patio

[8:31] eventually. Can't do that with the

[8:33] billboard there. I'm not even sure that

[8:35] their billboard is

[8:37] where it's supposed to be on our own

[8:39] property. Um, and whether it hangs over,

[8:41] there's some question about that. And I

[8:43] don't really care. What I care about is

[8:45] being able to operate the restaurant. um

[8:47] and make sure that it's sustainable. And

[8:49] it's not sustainable with people backing

[8:52] out the door, you know, um

[8:55] waiting two or three hours to get a

[8:57] seat. And the other part of this is I

[8:59] don't care that it says marijuana above

[9:01] it. People have made a comment, oh, it's

[9:03] because it says marijuana. We don't

[9:05] care. They go get their marijuana and

[9:06] come to us for cheese curds. I don't

[9:07] really care. I don't have a dog in that

[9:09] fight either. I'm not I don't do

[9:10] marijuana, but um I do cheese curds. Um,

[9:13] so, um, but the thing is is we are

[9:16] willing to give up parking spots, a

[9:18] couple of them, which cost us to get

[9:20] that billboard moved. Um, and I

[9:23] couldn't, the other question that was

[9:25] asked of me is why did you build the

[9:26] restaurant in that space knowing the

[9:28] billboard was there? I had to because it

[9:31] came with an Oprah to be able to build

[9:33] the restaurant there. So, it had to be

[9:35] built on the base of the Little Caesar's

[9:38] restaurant. Otherwise, I would have put

[9:39] the restaurant on the other end of the

[9:41] property. couldn't do that because of

[9:42] wetlands. So, there was a lot of, you

[9:45] know, discussion around this billboard

[9:47] beforehand and we just decided to build

[9:48] it. They'll come, we'll see what

[9:51] happens. And so, here we are with this

[9:52] is what happens. And so, we are asking

[9:55] to move it. Um, and we are asking to

[9:57] move it. Right now, it's 150 ft from a

[10:00] current billboard, so it doesn't meet.

[10:02] It's 660. Um, if we move it, it'll get a

[10:05] lot closer to that number. It will still

[10:07] not meet quite 660, but it'll be way

[10:10] closer to that 660 number. I think it'

[10:11] be closer to 500, so 480 something. So,

[10:16] we are helping get it, you know, closer

[10:18] to not having two big billboards right

[10:20] across from each other. Um, so I guess

[10:23] that's all I have to say if if um unless

[10:25] somebody has a question for me about

[10:27] what's happening here.

[10:28] >> In um the documents you filed, you

[10:31] indicated you have had conversations

[10:33] with Lamar about the move. Yes, we have.

[10:37] >> And they're agreeable. Apparently,

[10:39] >> they said we have to start with number

[10:41] one, getting you guys agreeable. And

[10:43] then they tried to make me pay for it.

[10:45] So, that's where it's going to be. A

[10:46] question is like, I'm giving you the

[10:48] property.

[10:50] And so, we need to come to terms with

[10:52] who's going to pay for it. I don't mind

[10:53] chipping some in if that's what I have

[10:55] to do to get it out of the roof of my

[10:57] restaurant. Um, but I don't know how

[11:00] that will work. We just need to get step

[11:02] one done. Is the current billboard, the

[11:05] space itself, the property that it sits

[11:07] on, leased by Lamar?

[11:09] >> Yes, it's leased by the Lamar, and I

[11:10] don't own I they that was already leased

[11:13] before I bought the property. So, it

[11:14] came with a 99-year lease when I brought

[11:16] the property. All right. I was not a

[11:18] recipient of that money to lease to

[11:21] them.

[11:23] >> Well, the they currently aren't paying

[11:25] you for that lease.

[11:26] >> No. No.

[11:26] >> No.

[11:27] >> Okay.

[11:27] >> What are they paying?

[11:29] >> It's it's actually it's actually an

[11:31] easement. It's not a lease and it's

[11:34] perpetual.

[11:34] >> Perpetual easement. Trust me, I tried to

[11:37] get around that every way possible with

[11:38] my attorneys

[11:39] >> as easement. That means it's city

[11:41] property.

[11:42] >> No, it belonged to I think whoever

[11:45] started the Little Caesars

[11:47] way way long time ago did this easement

[11:50] to them for some silly amount of money.

[11:52] I think it was like $2,000. I mean, it's

[11:54] a really really small amount.

[11:56] >> It was 22,000.

[11:57] >> 22,000. Okay.

[11:58] >> Onetime payment. onetime payment,

[12:00] >> which I'm sure they got back in a couple

[12:02] of years.

[12:03] >> Oh, yeah.

[12:03] >> Oh, they've multiplied that. I don't

[12:06] love billboards. If it was my city, I

[12:08] would vote them all out of here. Um I I

[12:10] don't love them. And I certainly don't

[12:12] love it above the restaurant. Um you

[12:15] know, for a for a multitude of reasons.

[12:16] People do get confused. Are you a

[12:18] Culver's? We've had people come in think

[12:20] we're culvers and then they come in

[12:21] asking where the marijuana is and you

[12:24] know, so whatever's up above us, that's

[12:26] what they think we are. Um, and I feel

[12:29] like Wanderin has added a lot to this

[12:31] community. We've put a lot of money into

[12:34] that property. I'm almost $2.5 million

[12:38] into rehabbing that property. Um,

[12:41] including, you know, the redo the um,

[12:43] redoing the seaw wall, working with

[12:45] Eagle, um, beautifying the property from

[12:48] what it was. As you all know, it was

[12:50] really a ramshackle kind of mess down

[12:53] there. And so we're $2.5 million in and

[12:57] the restaurant is is doing well. It's

[13:00] doing very well for a small community,

[13:02] but we really need to seat more people

[13:04] in order to make it long-term

[13:06] sustainable.

[13:07] >> Just one other quick question. Um are

[13:10] the current um folks being advertised on

[13:13] it in any way involved with discussions

[13:16] between you and Lamar um or will they be

[13:20] concerned about the move?

[13:22] >> I don't know. They can rent or not rent

[13:24] because it's a monthly rental.

[13:25] >> It's a monthly.

[13:26] >> Yeah, it's a monthly rental.

[13:28] >> Standing.

[13:28] >> They don't have a standing or I mean

[13:31] they're going to rent whatever. Like we

[13:32] rent billboards on the outside of both

[13:34] sides of town.

[13:35] >> I've seen them. Yeah.

[13:36] >> Yeah. Yeah. So, I don't think that has

[13:39] any bearing on it moving or not. As a

[13:42] matter of fact, I think if it moves to

[13:45] where we're talking, I think as you come

[13:47] around that curve once the new road is

[13:48] done, it will have better better

[13:50] visibility and you won't be looking at

[13:52] sign sign. You know, when you're

[13:54] driving, your eyes are trying to look at

[13:56] both signs. And if you've got, you know,

[13:58] a sign further away, I think it's it's

[14:00] safer in some ways. And I think it does

[14:04] look better to not have two signs on top

[14:05] of each other.

[14:11] Now, will there be any um issue around

[14:14] the permanent lease or long-standing

[14:18] lease if the billboard is moved? Will

[14:21] that would that be impacted in any way?

[14:23] >> That might be a discussion outside of

[14:25] what we're here to look at today. I

[14:28] mean, we have we have two variances in

[14:31] front of us.

[14:31] >> Yeah, I see that. And from my

[14:35] review of this, there's a myriad of

[14:40] tangents here

[14:41] >> of issues that could arise.

[14:42] >> Well, yeah. And the the concern I have

[14:44] is as a as a board, we would want to um

[14:48] at least take those things into

[14:50] consideration to make our

[14:53] agreement to or disagreement to a

[14:54] variance um workable for the parties

[14:57] involved. Well, from what I understand,

[14:59] if you This is me talking to Lamar and

[15:02] their attorney. From what I understand

[15:03] is if you approve for us to move it, the

[15:06] next step that we have is we have to

[15:07] give them an easement to the space where

[15:10] we're going to move it to, which is our

[15:12] property, we can do that. And then they

[15:14] have to release the easement that we

[15:16] have on ours. That would be done

[15:17] simultaneously at one closing. And that

[15:20] would just be a simple easement that we

[15:22] file any other way. And that was talking

[15:25] to their attorney today. So, we would

[15:27] just swap easement spaces

[15:29] >> and it would be the same size. It would

[15:31] not be an increase in size.

[15:32] >> The proposed location, to my

[15:34] understanding, is on an adjacent

[15:36] property that was not part of the

[15:39] original Little Caesar's property.

[15:42] >> That is one piece of property now. I

[15:44] combined Yeah, I combined the parcels.

[15:46] >> It wasn't in 2006 when the zoning orders

[15:49] was

[15:49] >> No. And they didn't they couldn't have

[15:51] gotten I mean, they couldn't have put

[15:53] the sign there then. Um, I don't know

[15:56] why how they ended up with two signs

[15:58] close to each other when the rule is 660

[16:00] feet and they get it 150 feet. That's

[16:03] kind of there must have been a variance

[16:04] for that to begin with or there wasn't a

[16:07] rule at that time. I don't know.

[16:09] >> More than likely the the rule wasn't

[16:11] >> wasn't in place. Yeah. But um yeah, I

[16:14] combined those parcels for a lot of

[16:16] reasons just to make it easy and um make

[16:19] it seamless for a lot of things. So uh

[16:22] partially being the um tip funding.

[16:26] >> So

[16:28] you have any other comments for us based

[16:31] on the separation issue. We have to have

[16:33] a another hearing on the setback.

[16:37] >> Yeah, I'm not sure about the setback

[16:40] thing.

[16:42] >> Rob, you might have to fill in on that.

[16:44] >> Well, as far as I

[16:46] >> didn't think we needed a setback, but

[16:47] >> Okay. Well, we do.

[16:50] >> Could you come up and need you to, you

[16:52] know,

[16:52] >> do you want to close the

[16:55] >> Are you speaking on this issue or on the

[16:57] setback?

[16:58] >> Okay. So, if there are any other

[17:00] comments from the public on the spacing

[17:04] issue.

[17:06] Okay. I will close that public hearing

[17:08] and open another one regarding

[17:11] subsection C paragraph 5 about the

[17:15] setback

[17:17] in article 18 standards and requirements

[17:20] for special uses

[17:22] or sideyard setbacks

[17:25] um for other billboard applications.

[17:30] Well, from my understanding from deep

[17:32] >> need your name and address.

[17:34] >> Rob Vanderhoff from Wanderin. Um I spoke

[17:37] with DTW. Mattie was down there with us.

[17:41] Um we know the water line runs close to

[17:44] where we wanted to put it. Um we worked

[17:47] with him. We marked a 10-ft set back

[17:50] from the water line. I think it was 10

[17:52] ft 10 or 12 feet somewhere in that

[17:54] vicinity. And he said that would be fine

[17:56] with them as long as it was that

[17:58] distance back. It is set back from the

[18:01] Milwaukee property as well because their

[18:04] property line is close to where we

[18:05] wanted to put it on that last parking

[18:07] spot. So, I'm not exactly sure on what

[18:11] that distance is because we would have

[18:13] to look at a plat map to exactly see

[18:16] what that setback would be, but I don't

[18:18] know what the city setback is on the

[18:21] property line for something like that

[18:23] >> on the side.

[18:24] >> Yeah.

[18:26] >> 10 probably. Oh, we're well over that.

[18:29] >> Yeah, we're we're well over where we

[18:31] wanted to put it. I

[18:32] >> Hey, I I have a question.

[18:34] >> Okay.

[18:34] >> Um

[18:36] the setback math um I assume that you're

[18:40] kind of um addressing setback from where

[18:43] the post is placed.

[18:45] >> Yes.

[18:46] >> So on top of the post you have the

[18:47] actual billboard which can be moved all

[18:51] the way to one side, all the way to the

[18:52] other side or can be right in the middle

[18:54] of the post.

[18:54] >> Yes. And we have to consider setback

[18:56] from the two furthest points.

[18:58] >> Okay.

[18:59] >> Where they are.

[19:00] >> So which way is it? Is the is the sign

[19:03] going to be straight up on the post or

[19:05] is it going to hang all because I think

[19:07] right now you have kind of considered a

[19:09] flag sign.

[19:10] >> Yeah, it's it's hanging this way and

[19:11] that's the way Lamar would like to

[19:13] continue it.

[19:14] >> So we have to measure from that side of

[19:16] the sign.

[19:17] >> Okay.

[19:18] >> Where do you know how wide the sign is?

[19:22] No, I do not know that because it's got

[19:24] a V on it

[19:27] >> V's out and I

[19:28] >> measurement in application.

[19:31] >> R did not give me that information.

[19:33] >> If if I might, there hasn't been um any

[19:36] application to actually move yet. We're

[19:38] talking about a variance before an

[19:41] application to to locate that would take

[19:44] place. And such an application would

[19:47] have to be reviewed by

[19:49] >> Yeah. We would look at the dimensions.

[19:50] >> Right. Right.

[19:51] >> And we may we are all aware that that's

[19:54] your job and you'll do that. What you're

[19:57] asking for now is sort of a preemptive

[20:00] uh agreement that we would allow the

[20:02] variance.

[20:03] >> Yes.

[20:04] >> For that setback.

[20:05] >> All right.

[20:05] >> Okay. Because I I noticed in the

[20:07] application for the variance that it

[20:09] says 240 square ft, which kind of seems

[20:12] like maybe 10 by 24 or something.

[20:14] >> Yeah.

[20:15] >> Um

[20:16] >> Mr. Chairman, can I interject?

[20:18] >> Sure.

[20:19] the board needs to approve a specific

[20:21] variance. So you need to approve a

[20:23] variance of for example 10 feet or 5

[20:25] feet or 15 feet. Uh you can approve a

[20:28] general variance from your setback

[20:30] requirements.

[20:31] >> Okay.

[20:31] >> So it's a little bit tricky since we're

[20:33] not certain what specific variance is

[20:35] being requested.

[20:36] >> All right. Would it be reasonable then

[20:38] to ask them to come back when the plan

[20:40] and application for that takes place so

[20:43] that we can actually make a variance

[20:45] that is in agreement with what the city

[20:47] needs? I think we could make a variance

[20:51] that they have to work within

[20:54] based on what the final they would have

[20:56] to know that their final plan that the

[20:58] furthest outside measurement of the sign

[21:01] has to meet that requirement. Would that

[21:04] be correct?

[21:04] >> Cir.

[21:05] >> If the applicant can select a variance

[21:07] that they would find acceptable, the

[21:09] board can approve that. But you have to

[21:10] approve a specific variance.

[21:12] >> Okay.

[21:13] And I that was my sense that we may be

[21:16] just a little premature

[21:18] for that particular variance um because

[21:22] we don't have a plan. You don't have a

[21:23] plan and we can't describe exactly what

[21:26] is expected.

[21:28] >> Um although I suppose we could

[21:31] we're we're empowered to require certain

[21:36] specific things happen. Um but we don't

[21:39] have the information to make that um

[21:41] that detailed of of a request at this

[21:44] point.

[21:44] >> My question would be what's wrong with

[21:45] the current uh requirement? Not you know

[21:48] located no closer than required front

[21:50] yard setback. Is there a problem with

[21:52] that?

[21:54] >> No.

[21:55] >> You're requesting a change to that?

[21:57] >> No.

[21:57] I don't think we deal with it then.

[22:00] You just have to follow it.

[22:02] >> Yeah. I that's that was kind of what I'm

[22:05] just sitting here thinking. And I'm

[22:06] thinking, you know, we already have

[22:07] those setbacks in place as long as we

[22:09] follow those and we continue on. Um,

[22:13] >> well, what you're proposing is is

[22:15] relocating it.

[22:15] >> Relocating the

[22:16] >> different setback.

[22:17] >> Yes. It would have well whatever the

[22:20] same setback is for whatever honor that honor that setback.

[22:26] >> So that's where it would be.

[22:27] >> Closer than existing

[22:29] >> existing. Well, unless that's in

[22:31] variance, just like it's a variance from

[22:33] the current requirement for proximity to

[22:35] the closest sign.

[22:36] >> Yeah,

[22:37] >> I would say our our agreement ought I

[22:40] would recommend it be honor the current

[22:43] requirement.

[22:45] >> However, this gets replaced except for

[22:47] obviously distance because that sounds

[22:49] to me like that's the one variance. Yes.

[22:51] >> Do we know if it encroaches in the

[22:53] setback at present?

[22:56] >> No. Oh, I mean the applicant can

[22:57] withdraw its request for a variance. If

[22:59] you're complying with the zoning

[23:00] ordinance setback standards, you don't

[23:02] need a variance for setback.

[23:04] >> Exactly.

[23:04] >> So, the applicant can withdraw their

[23:06] variance request on the record.

[23:08] >> Let's just draw.

[23:10] >> Okay, we'll withdraw.

[23:11] >> So, now we're down to spacing.

[23:12] >> Yep.

[23:16] » Do we need any formal acceptance of that

[23:19] being withdrawn at the meeting or just

[23:22] stating it on the record?

[23:23] >> That was sufficient. It was stated on

[23:24] the record.

[23:25] >> Okay. So now then we're only dealing

[23:28] >> now there's one

[23:28] >> with section um 1814 subsection C

[23:34] >> C4

[23:37] >> right

[23:37] >> all right so that public hearing is now

[23:39] closed and to some degree a moot point.

[23:43] Uh so we can strike

[23:48] from our agenda.

[23:50] >> Item two,

[23:51] >> item number business session item two

[23:57] » which is the variance from section 1814

[24:00] C

[24:02] >> five

[24:15] In order for us to entertain

[24:19] consideration of a variance,

[24:22] uh the ordinance is pretty clear that

[24:26] there are eight things, eight steps,

[24:28] eight conditions that we have to find by

[24:32] majority vote have been achieved.

[24:36] Uh if you fail those, we're not really

[24:40] even allowed to give you the variance.

[24:43] So, um

[24:45] I will uh go through really quickly what

[24:48] those eight items are and then we're

[24:51] going to have our own little discussion

[24:53] here and if we need clarification I

[24:56] think we're allowed to come to you and

[24:57] ask for it.

[25:01] So, we will

[25:04] start by outlining what those eight

[25:06] conditions are.

[25:07] >> Got them right on the screen for you.

[25:09] >> Oh, how about that? Technology

[25:12] So we've have to find first of all that

[25:14] the requested variance is not contrary

[25:16] to the public interest

[25:19] uh or to the intent and purpose of the

[25:21] ordinance.

[25:23] We have to determine that the variance

[25:24] does not establish a use that is not

[25:27] permitted already by right or by special

[25:30] use in that zoning district. You're in

[25:33] the uh you're in the waterfront zoning

[25:35] district uh which is not part of the C1

[25:39] district.

[25:40] Uh the requested variance does not

[25:42] create an adverse ad effect upon

[25:45] properties within the immediate vicinity

[25:46] or in that district.

[25:49] The variance is not of recurrent nature.

[25:52] It's not something that is so common

[25:54] that it should be addressed by the

[25:55] ordinance itself.

[25:58] The requested variance is for property

[26:00] that is under your control.

[26:03] The requested variance was not

[26:05] self-created by you

[26:08] um or by another party related to your

[26:11] ownership of the property. There's not

[26:14] an alternative

[26:16] solution here that would allow you to

[26:19] make your improvements without the

[26:21] variance. And finally, that the

[26:24] requested variance is the minimum amount

[26:26] necessary to still allow you uh the

[26:30] reasonable use of your land. So we have

[26:32] to find that all eight of those

[26:33] conditions exist. And if um if if they

[26:38] don't

[26:40] uh or if they do we then we also have to

[26:43] consider some uh other

[26:46] requirements

[26:49] here.

[26:51] If we can satisfy all eight of those,

[26:54] then we can grant you the variance if

[26:58] either one of two other things occurs.

[27:02] One of which is that there are practical

[27:04] difficulties which prevent you from full

[27:07] compliance with the ordinance.

[27:10] Uh and there are some uh terms of for us

[27:13] to use in evaluating that for particular

[27:17] parcels of land and that where there are

[27:19] exceptional uses uh or circumstances or

[27:22] physical conditions

[27:25] uh that they do not generally apply to

[27:28] other property in your district. They're

[27:30] somewhat unique to your piece of land.

[27:34] So, the first thing that we have to do

[27:35] is we have to go down our list of of the

[27:39] eight basic conditions that we're

[27:41] required to find in your favor uh in

[27:45] order for us to even have the ability to

[27:47] grant the variance. Um, I've kind of

[27:51] looked through these myself and some of

[27:53] them are givens. Some of them are things

[27:55] that I think you easily uh can uh can

[27:59] assert apply to your position. Other

[28:01] ones we may have to have discussion here

[28:05] and and do our own little

[28:06] interpretation.

[28:08] Uh the first one is that the requested

[28:10] variance shall not be contrary to the

[28:12] public interest or to the intent and

[28:14] purpose of the ordinance. I'm a little

[28:17] bit in a gray area on that one myself.

[28:20] Um

[28:23] there are references

[28:26] in the ordinance

[28:30] pretty specifically regarding billboards

[28:32] and with this one obviously because of

[28:34] the variance request one of them is

[28:36] spacing. Uh there's also uh another um

[28:40] discussion about uh the number of

[28:43] billboards that are permitted in the

[28:44] city. Um, and

[28:49] I think there could be some limited

[28:51] conflict there depending on whether this

[28:54] is considered a an existing or a

[28:58] modified or uh relocated or new

[29:02] billboard if another one is put up. And

[29:05] I realize there's a discussion about

[29:07] cancelling and creating easements at the

[29:10] same time. Um, it's it's a little

[29:13] complicated. It's not quite that simple.

[29:15] Um, but I'm a little bit in the black on

[29:17] that one. Does anybody else have any any

[29:20] comments on the first?

[29:24] >> Where are these listed while we talk

[29:26] these? Cuz like you mentioned, there's a

[29:28] little gray on this one. I'd just like

[29:30] to be looking at the wording of

[29:31] >> You're looking for This is This is the

[29:34] same thing that's in the book. I just

[29:35] took all the other pages out.

[29:37] >> Yep. And you were referring to what

[29:38] piece of this? Well, under section for

[29:41] uh 1814, billboards, uh

[29:44] >> basic conditions.

[29:45] >> Okay. Basic conditions

[29:46] >> B uh section B

[29:48] >> contrary

[29:49] >> describes the content the the intent.

[29:52] >> Um and I'm again I read those closely.

[29:55] They're plain English language reasons

[29:57] for why this section was written. And um

[30:01] none of them is at at this point in my

[30:05] opinion um

[30:07] beyond what uh would would cause us not

[30:12] to continue to consider this variance. I

[30:15] don't I don't think the intent um is

[30:19] such that it would prevent us from

[30:21] reasonably discussing the rest of these

[30:23] issues so that we can get to the point

[30:24] where we agree on a possible variance. I agree to some degree that this is kind

[30:30] of an on the fence one.

[30:33] >> The second one is that the variance

[30:36] would not permit the establishment

[30:40] within this district of any use which is

[30:42] not permitted by right

[30:45] or any use or dimensional variance for

[30:47] which a special land use permit is

[30:49] required.

[30:50] Uh

[30:52] first it is worthy of note that in this

[30:56] district which is the waterfront

[30:58] district uh billboards are not permitted

[31:02] um by special land use permit. That's

[31:04] correct.

[31:05] >> Mhm.

[31:06] So

[31:08] we also though do need to consider the

[31:10] fact that the the second the the B

[31:14] paragraph here uh refers to it as being

[31:18] permitting the establishment and this is

[31:20] to some degree not permitting the

[31:22] establishment. It's continuing an

[31:25] existing use. Um, so in and of itself, I

[31:30] think that you're fairly okay on section

[31:35] B as well. Any other discussion on that?

[31:38] Concurrence

[31:39] >> disagreement.

[31:46] » Again though, there's some splitting the

[31:48] hair though on whether or not this is

[31:51] considered a if if relocating the sign

[31:56] is is a continuation or whether it is a

[32:00] reestablishment. So that's that's

[32:03] unclear.

[32:06] Uh C is that the requested variance

[32:08] shall not cause substantial adverse

[32:11] effect upon properties in the immediate

[32:14] vicinity. Uh that is

[32:19] pretty subjective.

[32:21] Do we have any kind of a rule for for

[32:24] that? I mean we had a special hearing.

[32:27] Nobody showed up. So nobody's on fire

[32:30] about you know moving that billboard's

[32:32] gonna you know cause their house to

[32:33] collapse or something gonna block the

[32:35] sun. So if you know in my mind if there

[32:40] was a substantial adverse effect we have

[32:43] notified everybody within 200 feet

[32:45] >> 300 ft here they are standing in line

[32:49] chanting. So um I don't see where that

[32:53] is a deal breakaker. I just a question

[32:55] there. You said that the movement of the

[32:57] sign is towards the Milwaukee towards

[32:59] the boat. So it's to the north so to

[33:02] speak.

[33:02] >> Yes.

[33:03] >> And there's no problem with for them.

[33:05] >> No. No. We spoke with Robbie at the

[33:07] shift. He's help

[33:10] during go time. They may want to write.

[33:12] >> Yeah. They're not here to express

[33:15] anything different.

[33:16] >> No problem.

[33:17] >> Just as a point, did we were we like

[33:20] extremely restrictive in that distance

[33:23] of notice? Did we notice a little

[33:25] farther on either side? Uh

[33:27] >> 300's what's required by the ordinance.

[33:29] >> Yeah. So we picked right in the middle

[33:30] of the parcel and then I will say we

[33:33] also notified back in December the

[33:35] meeting that we ultimately cancelled. We

[33:37] did send out notices for that and the

[33:40] only one person came in asking what it

[33:43] was for and we didn't hear anything

[33:44] else. Um we canled it ultimately and

[33:47] resent letters but at that time no one

[33:50] else came forward with any. there's been

[33:51] no contact, no letters, no phone calls.

[33:56] Uh, subsection D that the conditions or

[34:00] situations

[34:01] which necessitate you to require the

[34:04] request the variance is not so general

[34:07] or of such recurrent nature. Uh,

[34:11] essentially this isn't such a common

[34:12] request that it that it should already

[34:14] be addressed by existing ordinance by

[34:17] general regulation. Um,

[34:21] is that an appropriate interpretation of

[34:22] that?

[34:23] >> That's spot on.

[34:26] E, the requested variance shall only

[34:28] relate to property that is under control

[34:30] of the applicant. I think we've

[34:32] established that you own the property.

[34:36] The next three are a little bit more

[34:39] troublesome in my opinion.

[34:42] F is that the requested variance shall

[34:44] not be necessitated by any self-created

[34:46] condition or action taken by the

[34:49] applicant or the property owner. Um

[34:54] there is a section of the ordinance

[34:58] which refers kind of specifically to

[35:01] something very similar to what is going

[35:05] on here and that is

[35:16] Section 401

[35:20] of the ordinance

[35:22] says that no nonconforming use of the

[35:25] land, which is what this is,

[35:28] shall be moved or in whole or in part to

[35:30] any other portion of the land, or to a

[35:34] different parcel

[35:36] not occupied on the effective date of

[35:39] this ordinance except as provided in the

[35:42] article.

[35:44] So what you're proposing under your

[35:47] variance

[35:49] is is kind of spot is almost directly

[35:52] this and

[35:53] >> explain that a little bit further.

[35:55] >> Um understanding

[35:57] >> you are

[35:59] requesting

[36:02] you have two pieces of property that

[36:04] you've made into one.

[36:06] What the ordinance kind of sort of says

[36:09] is that um

[36:12] if those weren't together, if they

[36:14] weren't already a piece of property, a

[36:17] single piece of actually you've got

[36:18] three, I think, that are merged into

[36:20] one.

[36:21] >> If you don't have um

[36:26] uh

[36:26] >> Oh,

[36:28] >> fun. areas.

[36:30] >> If if those weren't a piece of property

[36:32] when the zoning ordinance was put into

[36:34] place, which was 2006,

[36:37] you can't move a non-conforming use,

[36:40] which is what the sign is, to something

[36:42] other than the piece of property where

[36:45] it was when the ordinance was put. You

[36:47] I'll put it, let me paint a different

[36:49] picture. Let's say that you bought a

[36:52] piece of property um that that was a a

[36:56] 200 by 200 foot lot and it had a multif

[36:58] family house on it. You can't buy the 20

[37:01] acres behind it and throw up 100 more

[37:03] houses on it because that wasn't part of

[37:06] the property when the ordinance was put

[37:08] into place. It would have to meet the

[37:10] current ordinance now

[37:13] um which a billboard there would not.

[37:18] So, I'm having a little difficulty

[37:20] getting over that hump. My reading of it

[37:23] would be that if we allowed you to

[37:24] relocate it, it would have to be on

[37:27] somewhere on the property that existed

[37:30] as of 2006

[37:33] >> or not at all or removed and comply

[37:35] >> or remove which I think in a perfect

[37:37] world that sign just disappeared one

[37:39] night. It showed up in the scrapyard.

[37:41] >> That would be great.

[37:43] >> That's not up to us.

[37:44] >> No, but isn't it up to you if to some

[37:48] extent to say all signs in the city now

[37:50] have to comply with

[37:53] >> that was done in 2006.

[37:55] >> Well, why did they have to comply?

[37:57] >> Because it hasn't been moved

[37:59] >> like grandfather

[38:00] >> grandfathered grandfather.

[38:02] >> I wish you guys could just get rid

[38:05] >> a lot of things.

[38:06] >> That's what's interesting to me in this situation and that it's it's you're

[38:09] asking for a variance

[38:12] of something that's very out of

[38:14] compliance. Yes. that's more so out of

[38:16] but you could read where this says if

[38:18] we're going to alter it then remove it

[38:21] if it can't I mean that's to me what

[38:23] question here

[38:23] >> it's it's kind of a common thread in

[38:26] ordinances in general that if something

[38:29] existed before the rule it gets to stay

[38:32] but if you want to if you want to change

[38:34] something and it usually defines how far

[38:37] you can change things before it has to

[38:39] meet the ordinance now

[38:41] >> but isn't that why we're asking for

[38:42] variance to begin

[38:46] Uh, yes. But what I'm saying is that the

[38:47] ordinance says that that that is not

[38:50] allowed. That that's a specific thing

[38:53] that isn't allowed to be granted a

[38:55] variance.

[38:57] Um, it it says

[38:59] under non-conforming uses in 401, it

[39:03] says under no conditions shall the

[39:05] parcel be expanded and the use be

[39:08] expanded to a contiguous parcel, which

[39:11] is what has taken place here. continue.

[39:16] » It wasn't in 2006.

[39:19] >> Well, we can't go backwards no more than

[39:21] you guys can go backwards and make them

[39:22] >> correct.

[39:25] >> And it's not an expansion of use.

[39:28] That's something I'm reading in this.

[39:30] Right.

[39:30] >> It is a change. Um,

[39:33] >> it's a change.

[39:34] >> That's what I'm saying. This is not a

[39:35] this is not at all a simple thing.

[39:38] >> No, I get that.

[39:39] >> Yeah. Again, we have to meet all eight

[39:41] of these points and we got through five

[39:44] of them pretty well. The last couple

[39:45] have have an issue.

[39:47] >> Um,

[39:50] so to some degree there's a

[39:51] self-created,

[39:53] you know, and the other thing that kind

[39:55] of sort of makes this a self-created

[39:57] situation is um if somebody else wanted

[40:02] to buy that and make it into a tattoo

[40:04] parlor, they might not have any problem

[40:07] with that sign being there at all.

[40:09] It's it's kind of a self-created

[40:12] situation because you have different

[40:14] plans than somebody else might have. You

[40:16] want to put up an additional story. You

[40:18] want to expand out. And um those are to

[40:23] some degree discretionary

[40:26] um decisions that that you want to make

[40:29] more than that you have to make. They're sound business decisions. I get

[40:34] that. Well, we have to make it if we

[40:36] want this to be

[40:38] >> um

[40:38] >> successful long term and we want to be,

[40:43] >> you know, we want to do something that's

[40:44] great for the community

[40:45] >> and I think that we have

[40:47] >> and so um

[40:49] >> I've I've been in your very position in

[40:51] this room on this kind of topic.

[40:53] >> So I know

[40:55] >> could I just another comment? Yeah. And

[40:57] you brought up an example which would

[40:59] seem to make sense. you've been this

[41:01] something's been agreed to based on the

[41:03] current curtain zoning and it makes

[41:05] sense but you've done something that now

[41:08] you could see a person trying to take

[41:09] advantage of that whereas you're not

[41:12] trying to take advantage of this it's

[41:15] where I'm saying I get sort of where

[41:17] this is going and I don't see how it

[41:20] applies here

[41:22] >> the um any other

[41:24] >> No I'm still contemplating the things

[41:27] that you guys have already discussed Um,

[41:30] it suggests that

[41:33] on one hand that the the code is so

[41:36] strict as to say to a new owner of a

[41:39] piece of property that they um should

[41:42] have had

[41:47] should have known something that would

[41:49] be beyond their ability to know before

[41:52] they began making decisions about a

[41:55] piece of property and its use. um which

[41:59] to me goes back to the intent and

[42:02] purpose of the the code when we describe

[42:05] it. It's um intended

[42:08] to assist the city in allowing

[42:10] businesses and and economic activity um

[42:14] not to tell them that we're we're not

[42:18] going to allow that. So there there to

[42:21] my mind, yes, a pooling of three or

[42:25] four, whatever pieces of property there

[42:27] were so that this business could exist

[42:30] seems to suggest that they're then not

[42:33] allowed to move this sign.

[42:36] But yet without the ability to do this

[42:40] then their ability to actually do what

[42:43] the intent is improve the commercial

[42:46] structure of the city is u is prohibited

[42:50] and I I don't think that's what it I

[42:52] don't think that's consistent with the

[42:54] intent and the very first one that we

[42:56] went through and just said it does meet

[42:58] that condition. I think they're at least

[43:00] in this instance at odds.

[43:05] um you can't you're telling these people

[43:07] they can't meet condition one

[43:12] because they can't meet a condition

[43:15] farther down that is in conflict. That's

[43:18] my sense

[43:21] and I I would I would suggest that

[43:24] um

[43:27] from my point of view I would be more

[43:29] concerned with meeting the intent and

[43:31] the and the purpose of the of the um

[43:36] of the billboard positions rather than

[43:40] trying to find reasons um not to meet

[43:43] that intent.

[43:44] >> Right. I thought you were going to say

[43:46] and the intent of paragraph F. Again, I

[43:50] think paragraph F is more about trying

[43:52] to take advantage

[43:54] >> of a city zoning

[43:56] process by going and changing something

[44:01] that manipulates their property to then

[44:04] say, but I get to be able to change

[44:06] this, which is not the case. Anyway,

[44:08] it's a question of what what F really is

[44:10] intended, which is in line with where

[44:12] you're going.

[44:14] I I don't see where what's coming up

[44:16] here has to do with creating a worse

[44:20] situation for the city

[44:22] or or is really there trying to take

[44:25] advantage

[44:26] and manipulate what would be restricted

[44:29] by F.

[44:32] Uh, paragraph G speaks to there being no

[44:34] reasonable alternative location

[44:38] where uh, such a location would

[44:41] eliminate the need for the variance

[44:43] or reduce the extent of the conditions

[44:46] necessitating that. Uh we know that

[44:50] relocation

[44:51] would reduce the separation

[44:55] uh deficiency but it wouldn't eliminate

[44:58] it and it's not practical to eliminate

[45:01] it given the size of the property.

[45:07] Any comments on that?

[45:11] I I think there does need to be a

[45:13] recognition that if it stayed as it is

[45:17] that there's no need for necessitating a

[45:19] variance at all.

[45:23] >> But the the condition here is like the

[45:25] 75 more years on some sort of lease to

[45:28] somebody that says

[45:28] >> that's forever.

[45:29] >> It's a forever lease on this piece of

[45:32] property.

[45:34] That sounds like something that was in

[45:36] it

[45:38] created before this zoning intent was

[45:42] put together. That is nuts. Pardon my

[45:47] lack of proper definition, but yeah,

[45:49] what was the point of this forever thing

[45:50] on a billboard?

[45:53] That almost seems like something we

[45:55] should be able to bypass.

[45:56] >> If you own the billboard, it's very

[45:58] apparent why they want it that way.

[46:01] >> Mr. Chairman, can I offer some context

[46:03] to this condition? Maybe.

[46:05] >> So,

[46:06] the condition is intending to get at is

[46:08] there a location on the property that

[46:10] would meet the separation requirements?

[46:14] That's probably something the applicant

[46:15] can answer for you. So, is there a

[46:17] location on the property that would meet

[46:18] the 660 ft separation?

[46:21] >> No, we don't own it far enough. We would

[46:23] be into the ship's property,

[46:26] >> right? There is there is no alternate

[46:28] location

[46:30] >> and not in the other direction.

[46:34] >> If if they if they move it an inch from

[46:37] where it is now, it is it is less

[46:41] permissible than what they're proposing.

[46:43] The only the only equally permissible

[46:48] relocation is leaving it where it is

[46:50] because then it's not really moved at

[46:52] all.

[46:54] they would, you know, if if they

[46:56] withdrew the the second variance

[46:58] requirement,

[47:00] then they would remain in compliance as

[47:03] a non-conforming pre-existing structure.

[47:09] » And is it's also a case where this is

[47:11] restricted to your property because

[47:13] that's where the perpetual lease is

[47:16] attached. Otherwise, this wouldn't be

[47:18] this problem.

[47:21] finally that the requested variance is

[47:24] the minimum variance that would make

[47:25] possible the reasonable use of the land.

[47:28] I don't think there's a lot of debate on

[47:31] that particular point

[47:34] uh as far as spacing goes because it is

[47:36] an increase in the spacing although it's

[47:39] not

[47:40] in compliance. How far from the north

[47:43] property line

[47:46] toward the Milwaukee is this proposed to

[47:49] be?

[47:49] >> 15 ft.

[47:51] >> Could be farther. I I don't I wasn't

[47:54] exactly sure where their property line

[47:56] was. I don't He's got a sign up there.

[47:58] So, I measured from where his sign is

[48:01] above the parking and I think that's

[48:03] moving close to the property line. So, I

[48:05] measured from that back and where we

[48:07] wanted to put it was 15 ft.

[48:14] So I think that we need to determine

[48:17] first whether we find their variance

[48:19] application meets all eight of these

[48:21] points or if there is reservation

[48:26] or hesitation about them

[48:30] about any of this being applicable to to

[48:32] this situation.

[48:34] So we agree that G doesn't matter here.

[48:37] There is no So it does meet G.

[48:41] >> That could certainly be your vote.

[48:43] >> Yeah. Okay. I'm just Well, we haven't

[48:45] decided that yet.

[48:47] >> Okay.

[48:48] >> Is there discussion on anybody having a

[48:50] particular issue with any of the eight

[48:52] points?

[48:54] >> Just H. I question the requested

[48:56] variance is a minimum variance.

[48:59] >> I'm still drawn back to F.

[49:02] Yeah, I I agree. That's the only one

[49:04] that seems to be an issue that there's a

[49:07] self-created condition. Moving the sign

[49:09] is a voluntary minimum

[49:11] >> to desire.

[49:13] Um it is something that's

[49:16] requested

[49:19] uh because they have plans for the

[49:21] property uh that that cannot

[49:24] both be met and satisfy the ordinance at

[49:27] the same time.

[49:29] >> Speak to why we combine those properties

[49:31] a second. Sure.

[49:32] >> We combined them because consumers

[49:33] energy sort of demanded.

[49:36] We couldn't keep them separate. I'm just

[49:38] talking about I remember going through

[49:39] this. We couldn't keep them separate

[49:42] because they would have required us to

[49:44] have three separate polls down there.

[49:47] So, you would have had three telephone

[49:49] poles go down the line versus us

[49:53] combining the property at our expense

[49:55] and coming to you guys to just put one

[49:57] pole in because we were aesthetically

[49:58] trying to make this. I mean, if you got

[50:00] three poles going down the road, that's

[50:02] just it's ridiculous. They won't bury

[50:04] the line,

[50:05] >> right?

[50:05] >> And so they said, "Well, the only way we

[50:07] can get around you guys doing this is to

[50:09] combine the property,

[50:10] >> right?

[50:10] >> We can build one place. You can have one

[50:12] pole. This is what you can do, right?

[50:15] >> And they're still giving us a little bit

[50:18] is still giving us a little bit of

[50:19] runaround about enough power down there

[50:21] with one pole.

[50:22] >> I I understand your position where I'm I

[50:26] have a project. It took me two years to

[50:28] get three-phase power in. Yeah. Yeah.

[50:30] >> They just didn't want to do it.

[50:31] >> So, when you're talking about intent, it

[50:33] wasn't our intent to combine the

[50:35] properties to move a sign because we had

[50:37] no idea we were going to I had no clue

[50:39] that weren't going to be as successful

[50:41] as I'm really happy that it has been and

[50:44] the city loves it, but we had no clue

[50:46] that we better add on to this thing or

[50:51] that. So, um the intent was nothing to

[50:54] do with this,

[50:55] >> right?

[50:57] Um, we still though have to dot eight

[51:00] I's

[51:02] >> and and I keep going back to F,

[51:06] which is that is that consolidating the

[51:08] properties and moving the sign to begin

[51:11] with is is voluntary. That somebody else

[51:14] that was using the property for a

[51:16] different purpose might not even care or

[51:18] even notice that sign is there. Um, is that

[51:25] is my definition of self-created in that

[51:28] aspect

[51:29] uh legitimate

[51:31] or am I stretching a definition? Well,

[51:34] obviously the board is is responsible

[51:35] for finding the facts, but I'll add some

[51:37] context to self-created. It it's it's

[51:40] trying to to flesh out variance requests

[51:42] that are based on conditions that are

[51:44] inherent in the land or something that's

[51:48] outside of the applicant's control.

[51:54] Okay.

[51:56] >> And and I'm again inclined to think that

[51:59] um

[52:01] the applicants have

[52:04] made an effort to consolidate some

[52:06] properties to build a business. Business

[52:09] is very consistent with the intent of

[52:11] the ordinance. Um if anyone

[52:16] would have been responsible for this um

[52:21] this particular section you're finding

[52:23] difficult, it would have been a previous

[52:25] owner who um made decisions on a small

[52:28] piece of property to allow a a lease

[52:31] that lasts forever. And that that

[52:34] decision is not one you have control

[52:36] over. Um,

[52:39] I I'm I'm inclined to think that this

[52:42] would not prevent me from voting that

[52:44] these aid are met,

[52:47] then we still have special use or

[52:49] special conditions to consider. But if

[52:52] it's if that is not consistent with

[52:54] everyone else's thinking, we're at a

[52:56] point now where we probably need to make

[52:58] some take some actions to vote.

[53:04] And I think we would be we would be

[53:06] calling the question on each of these uh

[53:08] basic conditions one by one to see what

[53:11] the will of the organization is.

[53:17] Now, if that requires someone to call

[53:18] that question, I would I would so call

[53:22] that that we

[53:24] vote on each of these basic conditions

[53:27] individually to see if we all agree that

[53:30] they're met

[53:31] >> in the form of a straw poll

[53:33] >> in and we can do that as a straw poll.

[53:35] That's fine.

[53:38] That would that would allow us then to

[53:40] continue some serious discussion. I

[53:42] agree.

[53:43] So you want them you want them uh pulled

[53:46] one by one?

[53:47] >> Yeah, let us pull them one by one and

[53:48] see what the will of the four votes are.

[53:50] >> Been called.

[53:51] >> All right.

[53:55] So basic condition one that the

[53:57] ordinance variance is not contrary to

[54:01] the public interest or intent and

[54:02] purpose of the ordinance. All those in

[54:04] favor?

[54:06] >> I.

[54:07] >> Any opposed?

[54:10] B. The requested variance shall not

[54:12] permit the establishment within a

[54:14] district of any use which is not

[54:16] permitted by right within that zone

[54:18] district

[54:20] or any use or dimensional variance for

[54:22] which a special land use permit is

[54:25] required. We allowed to have any

[54:26] discussion right in this point or not?

[54:28] >> Oh absolutely. Yep. The straw port is

[54:30] just an formal poll so you guys can kind

[54:32] of get an idea of where you're

[54:34] >> we do have to keep in mind that that

[54:37] this use is not permitted by right in

[54:41] that district.

[54:43] >> The billboard is not allowed at all in

[54:47] the waterfront district.

[54:49] >> And how many are in that district?

[54:51] >> Those are pre-existing.

[54:53] >> Yeah, but there's already how

[54:56] >> this particular billboard is

[54:57] pre-existing. it exists as as a as a

[55:01] grandfathered billboard.

[55:03] >> Yeah. Then we have the question of

[55:04] whether or not moving it

[55:09] retains its classification as

[55:12] grandfathered once it's moved and if

[55:16] they in fact come back with a a change

[55:20] of the type of the billboard, the size

[55:22] of the billboard,

[55:24] anything of that nature. If we do get

[55:26] into a new situation

[55:30] of of setback,

[55:32] um I guess what we would be doing at a

[55:34] certain point would be

[55:37] a conditional approval subject to the

[55:42] review or recommendation of the zoning

[55:45] administrator on those types of items as

[55:48] to whether or not once it is

[55:52] in addition to the to the I guess what

[55:54] I'm getting as in addition to the

[55:56] spacing issue, there's a whole gamut of

[56:00] issues

[56:01] that relate to use, moving it to a

[56:05] property that it wasn't part of prior to

[56:07] the effective date of the zoning

[56:09] ordinance and and potentially some or

[56:12] all of the sign being in the setback. um

[56:16] and the nature of the sign, its size,

[56:20] you know, whether there's an an effort

[56:23] made to change the character of the

[56:25] sign, things of that nature. So I I

[56:28] there's some issues in B

[56:34] that in my mind

[56:36] are going to prevent me from being able

[56:38] to give it a straight up or down without

[56:40] some kind of well then I'd refer you to

[56:43] the the the section that describes our

[56:46] duties and responsibilities and rules

[56:49] and under rules the board that is us may

[56:53] specify in writing such conditions

[56:55] regarding character location and other

[56:58] features that will in its judgment s

[57:00] secure the objectives and purpose of

[57:03] this ordinance and any breach of those

[57:05] conditions shall automatically

[57:08] invalidate any permitted uh use or any permitted grant any permit granted.

[57:14] In other words, we can say

[57:17] in granting the variance that it is

[57:20] >> subject to further review of the zoning.

[57:22] >> Well, and and within these specified

[57:25] conditions. That is one of our powers.

[57:27] We can do that. Um, Mr. Chairman, I

[57:30] apologize for interrupting again. You

[57:32] certainly can. Another option for the

[57:34] board is to table the application

[57:36] pending the zoning administrator's

[57:38] determination as to the use status.

[57:43] because that that unsettles me. Um

[57:46] >> I'm just presenting that as an option to

[57:48] you,

[57:48] >> right?

[57:50] Um I mean I realize you want to get on

[57:52] with plans.

[57:54] Um

[57:56] >> you also probably don't want to start

[57:57] tearing the roof off the building in the

[57:59] middle of tourist season either.

[58:00] >> No.

[58:01] >> Um

[58:04] but I I do have concerns about about use

[58:07] outside of this variance. Um

[58:11] but then again they still have to come

[58:13] back for an actual

[58:16] application for the sign itself.

[58:18] Correct.

[58:20] We would only be addressing the issue of

[58:21] the variance

[58:24] as it relates to the location and not

[58:26] the use.

[58:27] >> Correct. Yes. You can evaluate the

[58:29] variance application on its face.

[58:31] >> Okay.

[58:34] So then we we can we can we can address

[58:37] the ordinance separation issue only and

[58:40] for now not have to deal with uses past,

[58:43] present or future.

[58:49] Uh

[58:50] E

[58:53] I think back to C. I think we've already

[58:56] kind of come to an agreement that there

[58:59] was no public input on this. Nobody's

[59:01] upset about it. there there doesn't

[59:03] appear to be any kind of an adverse

[59:04] effect.

[59:06] D uh the conditions

[59:08] are not so general that uh that they

[59:12] should be controlled by another section

[59:13] of the ordinance which we've agreed to

[59:16] that it the property is clearly under

[59:18] your control. There isn't an issue

[59:21] there.

[59:22] Um I appear to be in the minority on

[59:26] whether this is self-created.

[59:28] Um

[59:30] although again in retrospect looking at

[59:33] it purely from the standpoint of the

[59:35] separation it is an improvement over the

[59:37] existing status quo

[59:39] >> exactly

[59:40] >> regardless of the use

[59:44] G that there's no reasonable

[59:45] alternative. This appears to be unless

[59:48] you've got a a property stretcher there

[59:51] isn't a way to to do that and H kind of

[59:54] ties into the same thing. So

[59:58] if we

[1:00:01] agree that those eight are covered,

[1:00:04] not a foregone conclusion, but if we're

[1:00:06] leaning that direction, then

[1:00:09] either one of the following two have to

[1:00:12] be met as well.

[1:00:13] >> Marty, there's three technically

[1:00:16] >> three technical

[1:00:17] >> three special conditions. These were the

[1:00:19] two that the applicant checked on the

[1:00:22] application.

[1:00:23] >> Okay.

[1:00:24] as um

[1:00:27] meeting that. But these are the

[1:00:29] >> Oh, okay. I see see here now. So,

[1:00:35] we have to agree that

[1:00:38] any one of the following three have to

[1:00:40] be met where there are practical

[1:00:43] difficulties which which prevent full

[1:00:45] compliance.

[1:00:47] that the difficulty shall be evaluated

[1:00:49] in terms of the use of a particular

[1:00:52] parcel of land.

[1:00:54] And and it it lays out a couple things.

[1:00:56] It says certain facts don't don't weigh

[1:01:00] or con contribute to that consideration.

[1:01:08] There are practical difficulties

[1:01:11] with

[1:01:13] uh

[1:01:15] preventful compliance just because there

[1:01:17] isn't enough land to get you 660 ft

[1:01:21] away.

[1:01:29] So

[1:01:30] we may be able if we were in agreement

[1:01:33] that the first eight apply, we may be

[1:01:36] able to use that section as as one of

[1:01:39] the three to get us over that hump.

[1:01:43] The second potential additional

[1:01:46] condition is that where there are

[1:01:48] exceptional or extraordinary

[1:01:50] circumstances or physical conditions and

[1:01:53] again this kind of fits in that box

[1:01:58] and see where the variation is necessary

[1:02:01] for the preservation of a substantial

[1:02:03] property right.

[1:02:07] That one I'm not sure applies because

[1:02:09] nobody else in that district has the

[1:02:12] right to put up a billboard under the

[1:02:14] current zoning ordinance.

[1:02:17] So if we come to the conclusion that it

[1:02:21] does meet the first eight

[1:02:24] and that either A or B of the following

[1:02:29] special conditions apply,

[1:02:32] we may be able to grant the variance

[1:02:36] on an interim basis

[1:02:41] subject to some further review.

[1:02:44] >> Well, an in application to actually do

[1:02:46] the work. We have not seen the

[1:02:48] application,

[1:02:48] >> right? So, if there are clear conditions

[1:02:52] like

[1:02:54] um conditioned on the applicant entering

[1:02:56] into a new lease, that would be

[1:02:58] appropriate.

[1:03:00] an interim decision with a lot of

[1:03:02] flexibility that you may later change

[1:03:03] it. It's probably not it's not

[1:03:06] advisable. Um it just leads to too much

[1:03:09] uncertainty. If there are outstanding

[1:03:12] items that the board wants additional

[1:03:13] information on, the best option is to

[1:03:15] table it.

[1:03:18] I I see a myriad of potential

[1:03:23] little side lanes here, you know, out

[1:03:26] they're outside of the of of the the the

[1:03:30] dimensional variance for separation,

[1:03:33] more more and more in use situations.

[1:03:37] Um,

[1:03:38] I'm concerned about the

[1:03:42] expansion of a non-conforming use to an adjacent piece of property because

[1:03:47] there appears to be pretty much a

[1:03:49] prohibition on that in the ordinance.

[1:03:51] Um,

[1:03:53] and it it makes it pretty clear in a

[1:03:55] couple of places to me to my reading.

[1:03:58] And I' I'd like to take Paul's read on

[1:04:01] it, but I I I have trouble with it.

[1:04:04] Well, I I think you've already told us

[1:04:07] this is now one parcel of land.

[1:04:09] >> It is.

[1:04:10] now. It is. Um and we are now

[1:04:15] discussing um

[1:04:19] the practical difficulties shall be

[1:04:21] evaluated in terms of the use of a

[1:04:23] particular parcel of land. That's pretty

[1:04:27] straightforward to me. I I feel that

[1:04:28] we're talking we're not talking about um

[1:04:32] what may constrict um three or four

[1:04:35] separate pieces of property. We're

[1:04:37] talking about a parcel of land that is

[1:04:39] now this particular business. Um, and

[1:04:44] I'm not sure that um

[1:04:49] that I find anything

[1:04:53] that that again would cause me to think

[1:04:55] that this isn't a reasonable variance if

[1:04:58] it meets the other conditions at the

[1:05:01] time that the work is done, the setback

[1:05:03] issues and all of the other things. And

[1:05:05] the only reason they say that is because

[1:05:07] they they have not yet applied to do the

[1:05:09] work and have it presented something for

[1:05:11] you to decide on as the administrator.

[1:05:15] Now would would that change if we were

[1:05:19] to table this and allow them the time to

[1:05:24] prepare and with you um their proposal

[1:05:29] so that you can evaluate it for its

[1:05:31] fitness for this? I wouldn't be able to

[1:05:34] grant anything,

[1:05:36] >> right?

[1:05:36] >> So, it would just be a

[1:05:38] >> it would be a review and it would come

[1:05:40] back.

[1:05:40] >> I could do a review. Yeah.

[1:05:42] >> But you would do a review at such point

[1:05:45] and provide us with a report of things

[1:05:47] that would Okay.

[1:05:51] >> And that's within your scope of

[1:05:53] authority, I think, as I read this. Um,

[1:05:56] >> did you read section 401?

[1:05:59] >> Section 401. Go ahead.

[1:06:04] Oh yeah,

[1:06:07] » me that's a pretty much a prohibition

[1:06:11] because it it specifies the the date of

[1:06:16] the ordinance as being

[1:06:31] in In my mind, if I read that

[1:06:33] charitably,

[1:06:35] the billboard could be moved on the

[1:06:38] property as it existed at that time

[1:06:41] without violating the intent of that

[1:06:44] section. Moving it to the adjacent

[1:06:46] property that was added to the parcel in

[1:06:48] the last two years. To me, that that

[1:06:51] gives me heartburn if we're supposed to

[1:06:54] be following the ordinance, including

[1:06:56] it's that's that's intent to me. And you

[1:06:59] see that the same way as the

[1:07:01] administrator?

[1:07:02] >> Um I would look at it separately and

[1:07:05] provide a recommendation. Probably this

[1:07:07] came forward before I started. I do want

[1:07:10] to express that also. The only reason um

[1:07:14] I think I'm still discussing this at

[1:07:17] this point is um we have a petitioner

[1:07:19] here who's

[1:07:21] >> wants to understand what can and can't

[1:07:23] be done with that piece of property. And

[1:07:26] if this is overriding any of our

[1:07:30] decisions about variance, uh we need to

[1:07:32] understand and know that and as the

[1:07:34] administrator, you would be at least in

[1:07:37] better position to give us that opinion

[1:07:41] at the time that you review.

[1:07:43] >> I do think it needs more review.

[1:07:48] Um it's this is far from being a a

[1:07:51] simple easy open and shut kind of thing.

[1:07:53] I think getting rid of the setback is a

[1:07:56] big step forward

[1:07:58] and I think there's a good case to be

[1:08:00] made that the separation distances have

[1:08:03] increased between billboards,

[1:08:06] but the the relocating part of it is is

[1:08:09] worrisome to me.

[1:08:11] And I think if we're go I think without

[1:08:13] knowing what what exactly is going to be

[1:08:16] moved, what the new thing is that

[1:08:19] creating a variance for it to be there

[1:08:22] is pre to use your word premature.

[1:08:24] >> Yeah. And what I'm concerned to know is

[1:08:28] although most of this section is

[1:08:29] referring to structures

[1:08:32] um

[1:08:34] and and I understand that why that would

[1:08:36] be a prohibition that a structure would

[1:08:38] be moved within a parcel and so on

[1:08:40] because we've all had that kind of

[1:08:42] discussion.

[1:08:43] >> Billboard is a structure

[1:08:45] >> is it? It has its own separate section

[1:08:48] of the code and its own separate rules

[1:08:52] >> as a use.

[1:08:53] >> As a as a use,

[1:08:57] >> it's it's defined as anything on the

[1:08:59] ground. Well, I understand that.

[1:09:10] » And yes, we do know that no matter what

[1:09:13] happens, that particular billboard would

[1:09:16] not be conforming no matter what what's

[1:09:18] agreed to,

[1:09:18] >> right? because the only way to bring it

[1:09:21] into

[1:09:23] conformance would be for it to disappear

[1:09:25] >> or to stay exactly where it is and we're

[1:09:27] back to this same dilemma that you're

[1:09:30] apparently faced with.

[1:09:36] So I I think that I for one need to see

[1:09:39] a little bit more from Lamar and what

[1:09:41] they would what they would be replacing

[1:09:43] it with

[1:09:44] >> exactly what's there.

[1:09:47] >> That's what they told me. That's what we

[1:09:49] were asking.

[1:09:49] >> We don't know the orientation.

[1:09:53] » There's some things we don't know.

[1:09:55] >> Well, you can you not um

[1:10:00] can you not do this variance in based on

[1:10:05] the fact that it would stay exactly the

[1:10:07] way it is? The orientation is stay the

[1:10:09] same. The sign size stay the same.

[1:10:13] >> I think you're right. We can in fact

[1:10:15] specify the the specific things that

[1:10:18] have to be met before it would be

[1:10:20] allowed to happen.

[1:10:21] >> The only reason we didn't apply for the

[1:10:23] permit is because that would be assuming

[1:10:26] to me I would be making the assumption

[1:10:28] that you would approve it. So I wouldn't

[1:10:30] apply for the permit before you gave the

[1:10:32] approval.

[1:10:33] >> Understood.

[1:10:35] >> So I thought I was following this

[1:10:37] sequentially what you would need me to

[1:10:38] do.

[1:10:41] >> Yeah.

[1:10:43] I'm I'm inclined to heir on the side of

[1:10:46] caution with council's advice to table

[1:10:49] it for them to review it.

[1:10:51] >> I wouldn't oppose that at all. I just um

[1:10:54] troubles me that

[1:10:57] a decision that was made to grant a

[1:11:01] extraordinary perpetual lease

[1:11:04] um is now this person's burden. Um, and

[1:11:11] I'm not sure how fair I feel that is,

[1:11:15] which is certainly one of the underlying

[1:11:17] things we're trying to accomplish, some

[1:11:18] fairness. Um, but yeah, you're right. We

[1:11:21] need probably a little better counsel on

[1:11:23] this, a little more um review and

[1:11:25] understanding on whether or not this

[1:11:29] non-conforming structure issue is going

[1:11:33] to bar them from making this move.

[1:11:36] And could I dovetail because that you

[1:11:38] touched on a concern I have and that's

[1:11:39] the notion of when the zoning ordinance

[1:11:41] becomes effective there's a a whole host

[1:11:43] of grandfathered property. Is there some

[1:11:46] administrative procedure about how that

[1:11:48] is dealt with?

[1:11:49] >> Because it would seem to me if something

[1:11:52] does not fit current ordinance the

[1:11:54] inclination would always be to correct

[1:11:57] it in this case would probably be remove

[1:12:00] it completely. But there's this the

[1:12:04] whole situation we've all talked about

[1:12:06] this is grandfathered in. It's an

[1:12:08] accepted piece of construction as it is.

[1:12:12] There's an interest to move it. Is there

[1:12:14] any procedures about how you deal with

[1:12:16] things that are grandfathered in that

[1:12:18] are express what is best for the comm or

[1:12:22] how we should direct this towards the

[1:12:23] community because I'm I'm just off a

[1:12:25] judgment. Get rid of it or move it. I

[1:12:28] >> I suspect that that's the reason there's

[1:12:30] a zoning board of appeals. Yes, make a

[1:12:32] judgment.

[1:12:34] >> There we are.

[1:12:35] >> There there is a a stated

[1:12:38] um

[1:12:40] section in the ordinance that basically

[1:12:45] the essence of it is billboards serve a

[1:12:48] limited public benefit.

[1:12:51] They they they can direct people to

[1:12:53] things. Uh they can give information.

[1:12:56] They're of value to motorists to a

[1:12:58] certain point. A few is fine. One on

[1:13:02] every street corner. Triple stack

[1:13:04] double-sided blinking maybe not so much

[1:13:07] because at a certain point they're

[1:13:08] distraction.

[1:13:09] >> And at this point that one doesn't

[1:13:11] comply with the intended positioning of

[1:13:14] >> So the ordinance itself

[1:13:16] in 2006 limited the number of billboards

[1:13:20] to 10.

[1:13:22] By my count we now have 15.

[1:13:25] So somehow some of them creeped in. Um,

[1:13:29] so to answer your question about

[1:13:33] what does the ordinance intend, what's

[1:13:36] the inference of the ordinance, etc., Um, we're already past the point of

[1:13:44] what the ordinance considers to be, you

[1:13:49] know, if if the ordinance would infer

[1:13:53] that it would be in the city's interest

[1:13:54] for this to be gone, it's in excess of

[1:13:56] the limit. It doesn't. Yeah.

[1:13:58] From Lamar's standpoint, that billboard

[1:14:01] ain't going anywhere unless it's

[1:14:03] replaced by similar, not even similar,

[1:14:06] better. Um, from your standpoint, you

[1:14:09] want it gone, too.

[1:14:11] >> So,

[1:14:12] >> Oh, I know. Um,

[1:14:15] >> if we can't have it gone, moving it at

[1:14:17] least allows us to build our business.

[1:14:19] >> Understood.

[1:14:21] >> So, we have several

[1:14:25] converging issues here. Okay.

[1:14:28] >> Um,

[1:14:30] >> one other that hasn't been discussed is

[1:14:32] that mot the movement down towards the

[1:14:34] Milwaukee. I mean, the whole point of

[1:14:35] that boat and that display, that sort of

[1:14:37] museum piece is you see it. I just

[1:14:40] wonder what happens when they suddenly

[1:14:42] they have a massive billboard down in

[1:14:44] front that isn't about their

[1:14:46] establishment.

[1:14:47] >> No, they're fine with it.

[1:14:48] >> They've said they're fine.

[1:14:49] >> I can get Robbie. We can get Robbie to

[1:14:52] come in here because we talked about

[1:14:53] trying to move it onto his property, me

[1:14:55] doing a donation of some sort to buy a

[1:14:58] chunk of his property to actually get it

[1:15:00] to 660 ft. But if we did that, then

[1:15:04] you're getting too close to those

[1:15:05] condos. You guys are really you really

[1:15:08] messed up here with the 660 ft because

[1:15:11] if you really get it 660 ft, you're in

[1:15:14] the you're you're getting so close to

[1:15:16] those condos that the condo owners

[1:15:17] aren't going to want that,

[1:15:18] >> right?

[1:15:19] So we we tried to get it as far away

[1:15:24] into close to 660. We were open we could

[1:15:26] get to 660. Come to you guys and say

[1:15:28] okay now we're making it because that

[1:15:30] would have made it easier for you.

[1:15:35] » How do we want to address this

[1:15:37] gentleman?

[1:15:38] >> Mr. Chair, can I add something?

[1:15:39] >> Absolutely.

[1:15:40] >> Prior to Maddie

[1:15:43] let me introduce myself. I'm the

[1:15:44] building official and community

[1:15:45] development director. I took the

[1:15:47] original application and um I want to

[1:15:51] address a couple things that didn't come

[1:15:54] up tonight that just popped in my head

[1:15:56] that may be relevant. One is I checked

[1:15:59] with the state of Michigan MDOT

[1:16:02] when this request came in to ask if they

[1:16:06] determine their distance. They have a

[1:16:08] distance as well. Is it on the same side

[1:16:10] of the street or adjacent to ours is we

[1:16:14] measure from the closest billboard

[1:16:16] either side of the road. They do not. If

[1:16:19] this billboard is granted to move, they

[1:16:22] will permit it. That's what the lady at

[1:16:25] whom told me on the phone. Whether

[1:16:28] that's relevant to you folks or not, I

[1:16:30] just remembered I didn't share that with

[1:16:33] anybody. Um the other question I asked

[1:16:37] her was exactly what the chairman

[1:16:40] struggling with. If it's moved, is it a

[1:16:43] new sign or an existing sign?

[1:16:46] That was the very first place that I

[1:16:48] went with this in my brain. And she

[1:16:51] said, "We don't care.

[1:16:54] We're going to write a new permit. If

[1:16:57] you allow this structure to be moved, if

[1:17:00] it's a new structure, if it's the same

[1:17:02] structure, irrelevant to them."

[1:17:04] >> So, their position was we need to make

[1:17:06] that determination locally.

[1:17:08] >> You need to decide if you're going to

[1:17:11] allow it to be moved. They're going to issue a permit. if it

[1:17:15] is

[1:17:17] >> um

[1:17:18] >> she didn't really have care one way or

[1:17:21] the other if it was

[1:17:25] different or saying

[1:17:27] >> do we know when that sign was was put

[1:17:29] up.

[1:17:30] Has anybody heard that number

[1:17:33] >> would have been it was when Little

[1:17:35] Caesars was there? So

[1:17:41] » remember the date

[1:17:42] >> because the the e the easement is dated

[1:17:44] 2006.

[1:17:46] >> I think that's

[1:17:47] >> but I'm not clear I'm not clear if they

[1:17:50] created the easement 20 years after the

[1:17:53] sign was built.

[1:17:54] >> No, it was created for that sign.

[1:17:56] >> For that sign? Yes.

[1:17:57] >> So I was going to say 2004, but it might

[1:18:00] be 2006

[1:18:02] >> because the easement has a date on it of

[1:18:07] You might want to make a note of this.

[1:18:10] The date on the easement is September of

[1:18:13] 2006.

[1:18:16] The ordinance

[1:18:18] >> was effective February of 2006.

[1:18:23] So it is

[1:18:28] » So hold on.

[1:18:29] >> Yes, that's what I just said. I'm not

[1:18:31] going to editorialize.

[1:18:33] >> Yeah.

[1:18:33] >> I just Okay. Yes.

[1:18:35] >> File that away.

[1:18:36] >> Yep.

[1:18:37] >> So, I don't know if you

[1:18:38] >> February of 2006. So, actually,

[1:18:45] » thank you, God.

[1:18:47] >> Um,

[1:18:48] >> thank you, sir, for those numbers.

[1:18:50] >> Yeah. And then the other thing I'm

[1:18:51] noticing is we we've got within the

[1:18:54] definitions um you know non-conforming

[1:18:58] building structures, non-conforming

[1:18:59] uses, setbacks, a specific paragraph on

[1:19:02] signs and then another specific

[1:19:05] paragraph on structures

[1:19:07] >> sign. It's not it was billboards were

[1:19:10] removed from the definition of signs

[1:19:13] specifically

[1:19:14] >> in the 2006 ordinance. They removed

[1:19:16] >> Okay. All right. That's that's that's

[1:19:19] good to know. So again, I I am

[1:19:23] not comfortable with all this exactly

[1:19:27] without some more review.

[1:19:29] >> I I think we need to turn the wizards

[1:19:31] loose on it. If they bring it back to

[1:19:33] us, if it goes to the planning

[1:19:34] commission, whatever happens happens.

[1:19:36] Scrappers show up and take it in the

[1:19:38] middle of the night.

[1:19:38] >> So a motion to table is in order. And I

[1:19:41] would make that.

[1:19:43] >> I would I'm sorry to interrupt again. I

[1:19:46] would suggest tableabling it to a date

[1:19:47] certain if possible or to a meeting to

[1:19:51] be held within 30 days.

[1:19:54] >> Your motion.

[1:19:54] >> Is that consistent with your needs as

[1:19:56] the administrator?

[1:19:57] >> Yeah, I would do within 30 days and then

[1:20:00] we can review the planning commission to

[1:20:02] review amendment. Could I offer just one

[1:20:04] other the idea and that is I think I've

[1:20:07] heard you guys reference this could be

[1:20:09] generate to the point that the council

[1:20:11] needs to look at this get some feedback

[1:20:14] from a greater body and for this that

[1:20:16] represents the whole city. The point you

[1:20:18] just bring up about the billboards

[1:20:21] having grown from wherever they are now

[1:20:24] you know from maybe where they first met

[1:20:27] the ordinance. This does seem a bit out

[1:20:30] of control

[1:20:32] and we're trying to control it but

[1:20:35] trying to it seems like we feel kind of

[1:20:38] hog tied by situation and and written

[1:20:41] rule when when we're very far out of a

[1:20:44] bit out of compliance at all with what

[1:20:47] the city intended with the ordinance and

[1:20:50] now we're we're addressing some

[1:20:52] significant investment that I'm just

[1:20:55] curious if the better alternative is no.

[1:20:57] you should just remove the billboard

[1:20:59] completely. Move it out of the city. I

[1:21:02] mean, it's a thought.

[1:21:04] >> That's not our choice.

[1:21:05] I'm wondering if

[1:21:06] we also say council, do you want to

[1:21:08] address this?

[1:21:09] >> I don't sure that it's a council issue.

[1:21:11] I think it

[1:21:12] >> doesn't have that choice either. So if

[1:21:15] the question to remove the billboard

[1:21:18] >> to remove it if it's out of compiance

[1:21:21] and if the ordinance was put in the

[1:21:24] easement was the ordinance was put in in

[1:21:27] February 26th and the easement was

[1:21:30] established in September of 20 of 2006

[1:21:35] then if they didn't get a special use

[1:21:37] permit and they didn't get

[1:21:38] >> there's no such thing allowed in that

[1:21:40] district.

[1:21:40] >> There's no such thing. So the way the to

[1:21:43] be completed.

[1:21:44] >> The ordinance reads would allude to

[1:21:47] maybe that the easement was put in place

[1:21:48] after the billboard was constructed.

[1:21:52] >> So the

[1:21:52] >> that's something that's why I asked the

[1:21:54] question about how old is the billboard

[1:21:57] because I don't know.

[1:21:58] >> So the the way that the the ordinance

[1:21:59] was amended in 2007 to include a list of

[1:22:04] billboards as existed in February of

[1:22:07] 2006, which was the 10 billboards on 31.

[1:22:11] But it does not site their locations. It

[1:22:13] says on US 31.

[1:22:16] >> So I would assume that China one of them

[1:22:19] >> most likely.

[1:22:20] >> It's not in the record.

[1:22:21] >> I I would assume based on my count that

[1:22:24] every existing billboard by Lamar is one

[1:22:27] of those 10 billboards.

[1:22:31] >> Mr.

[1:22:34] Any way that you guys could get

[1:22:36] billboards that are not compliant and

[1:22:39] you don't want in the waterfront

[1:22:41] district. Has the city exhausted their

[1:22:44] way of getting rid of those?

[1:22:46] >> I don't think it's even been addressed.

[1:22:49] >> I don't think until very recently until

[1:22:52] this came up that it's really been

[1:22:54] looked at. I think everything's

[1:22:56] >> terrible. You put a lot of money over $2

[1:22:58] million into that property.

[1:22:59] >> I feel for it.

[1:23:00] >> Yes, you did. Exactly. That's why we're

[1:23:03] struggling so long and hard on this.

[1:23:05] >> They're money pits. I got a few of my

[1:23:07] own.

[1:23:07] >> Yeah. So, um,

[1:23:10] but until this particular issue came up,

[1:23:14] all the those signs have all been there.

[1:23:16] I mean, if if if they had come in today

[1:23:19] and wanted to put up a new one where

[1:23:20] there wasn't one already, they they'd be

[1:23:22] told no. I think the ones, you know, the

[1:23:24] signs that have been there have been

[1:23:25] there long enough that nobody has gone

[1:23:28] back to second guess or relook or double

[1:23:31] check to see, you know, was there ever a

[1:23:32] building permit pulled for it? Was it

[1:23:34] built after the ordinance? You know,

[1:23:38] it's the list of the of the eight Lamar

[1:23:42] billboards that are on US 31. Is there

[1:23:45] such a list? You know, that's why I

[1:23:48] asked if you knew how long it had been

[1:23:50] there.

[1:23:51] >> How do we

[1:23:53] >> I don't know. That's why I asked.

[1:23:55] >> Okay. Well, I may speak to you. How do

[1:23:57] we

[1:23:58] >> the billboard may have been built before

[1:24:03] » but those part of the just legalities of

[1:24:06] the whole debate or the real details but

[1:24:09] I don't think anybody here would deny

[1:24:11] the fact that

[1:24:12] >> the city's not getting what they want

[1:24:14] with all those billboards.

[1:24:16] >> Well, this was written after those were

[1:24:18] placed strategically

[1:24:21] >> knowing that most were closer together

[1:24:23] than that.

[1:24:25] >> Well, some were there. You've brought

[1:24:26] the fact more have shown up.

[1:24:28] >> There are somehow there are roughly 15.

[1:24:30] >> The 10 Lamar large traditional

[1:24:33] billboards are what are quoted in this.

[1:24:37] >> Nine.

[1:24:37] >> It says nine.

[1:24:38] >> Nine. Okay. Nine with whatever faces.

[1:24:41] >> The ones Marty's referring to are the

[1:24:45] sort of wooden billboards. Mhm.

[1:24:49] >> Three of them have state numbers on them

[1:24:52] >> which indicates they've been

[1:24:53] >> that they're on the state register.

[1:24:55] >> Yeah. which puts some more billboards

[1:24:56] that that that gets you to 12 or 13

[1:25:00] >> and the best I can find there I guess

[1:25:02] unless I if the state has record of when

[1:25:05] those were put up is in Google Maps it

[1:25:07] takes you back to 2008 and those are

[1:25:09] there as well. So I would

[1:25:10] >> that's just my point is that there's a

[1:25:12] lot of moving parts here

[1:25:13] >> and I don't have all the answers and I

[1:25:15] don't necessarily want to charge full on

[1:25:18] into this without knowing the answer.

[1:25:19] >> Yeah. And if we're going to table it um

[1:25:21] to a date specific um we should probably

[1:25:26] >> call for your question.

[1:25:27] >> Well, I'm about to suggest that, but I

[1:25:29] see that 30 days from today is Memorial

[1:25:32] Day and we won't be meeting that date.

[1:25:34] >> So, we could at a date specific in May

[1:25:38] as set by the administrator

[1:25:41] >> when she can um

[1:25:42] >> within 30 days

[1:25:44] >> be determined.

[1:25:45] >> Yeah. Because she will be probably asked

[1:25:49] individually by one or more of us for

[1:25:53] additional information that may take

[1:25:54] some time for her to research. Um

[1:25:57] >> so

[1:25:59] restate your motion

[1:26:00] >> that we uh table this um application I

[1:26:05] think is what it's called now. um to within 30 days a date to be

[1:26:12] specified by the building administrator.

[1:26:15] >> Zoning administrator

[1:26:16] >> zoning excuse me zoning administrator.

[1:26:19] You're both though, aren't you?

[1:26:20] >> No.

[1:26:21] Jerry is the building back over

[1:26:23] there.

[1:26:24] >> All good.

[1:26:25] >> Um May 18th.

[1:26:28] >> What's post between now and then? I will

[1:26:31] >> there can be you can get in touch with

[1:26:33] us and find make sure everybody's

[1:26:34] available and

[1:26:36] >> well if you want to set a date today

[1:26:39] >> this just to continue discussion

[1:26:42] >> or gather should there be more

[1:26:43] >> take it off take it off the table and have our hopefully a decision we

[1:26:48] should be able to make one by then

[1:26:50] >> my understanding is you want the zoning

[1:26:51] administrator to make a determination as

[1:26:54] to the use status of that of the

[1:26:57] existing billboard

[1:26:58] >> and a proposed reloc

[1:27:01] Correct. That's my concern is use.

[1:27:03] >> Okay.

[1:27:04] >> Between All right.

[1:27:05] >> And we we'll table variance until we

[1:27:07] know use

[1:27:07] >> and we apologize for being here and and

[1:27:10] but it's going to take that long.

[1:27:12] >> It's okay.

[1:27:13] >> All right.

[1:27:13] >> I mean, we have a hard time determining

[1:27:15] variance before we know what the

[1:27:17] specific use is.

[1:27:19] >> Well, so moved.

[1:27:21] >> Is there a second? I guess

[1:27:23] >> any com any more conversation?

[1:27:27] All in favor? Do we need a roll call?

[1:27:30] Just a

[1:27:32] >> might as well.

[1:27:34] >> Okay. Board member Johnson.

[1:27:37] >> Yes.

[1:27:38] >> Board member Dworth.

[1:27:40] >> Yes.

[1:27:40] >> Vice Chair Drain.

[1:27:42] >> Yes.

[1:27:42] >> And Chair Spalding.

[1:27:43] >> Yes.

[1:27:46] >> Okay. Next on our agenda,

[1:27:50] Riveright buried that.

[1:27:52] >> Mine went blank, so I wish I could help.

[1:27:59] I think we're in a public comment zone.

[1:28:07] Are there any public comments on

[1:28:08] anything not on the agenda from

[1:28:10] everybody not here?

[1:28:15] Staff reports.

[1:28:16] >> Well, Jerry just walked out right before

[1:28:18] I was about to go through our new

[1:28:21] breakdown in the department. But for

[1:28:23] those I haven't met until today, my name

[1:28:25] is Maddie. Um, I started with the city

[1:28:27] back exactly 6 months ago today. The day

[1:28:31] that this application came in for the

[1:28:34] variance was October 27th. Um, this is

[1:28:38] Jackie. She's our administrative

[1:28:39] assistant in the office. And then Jerry

[1:28:42] has taken over the community development

[1:28:44] director title from Teresa and he's also

[1:28:47] serving as the building official. And so

[1:28:49] I do the planning and zoning, he does

[1:28:52] the building, we work together on big

[1:28:54] stuff like this. But if you ever need

[1:28:57] anything, uh, one of the three of us are

[1:29:00] always available. And

[1:29:03] maybe we'll meet twice this year. We're

[1:29:04] already meeting twice this year. Maybe

[1:29:06] we'll meet three times.

[1:29:08] >> Record breaker.

[1:29:09] >> So this was about staff. You guys are

[1:29:12] staff.

[1:29:13] >> Yes.

[1:29:14] >> And we are board. And I just like to

[1:29:16] make a statement. I've been to one board

[1:29:19] meeting and I was an alternative

[1:29:21] alternate and I didn't know I was

[1:29:24] actually a board member, but that's

[1:29:26] fine. So,

[1:29:28] >> I walk into this going, "Oh,

[1:29:30] >> you didn't get out of the way fast

[1:29:31] enough."

[1:29:33] >> So, we are we have a vacancy right now.

[1:29:35] So, as long as or in the case Shel's not

[1:29:38] here, so we just can't have a board of

[1:29:40] six.

[1:29:40] >> Okay. So, I'm filling a vacancy.

[1:29:42] >> Yeah. And any

[1:29:43] >> for the meeting's purpose. Okay. in any

[1:29:45] point someone's gone or we have a

[1:29:47] vacancy as we do now um an alternate can

[1:29:50] sit on the reg then that's what I'm

[1:29:52] doing at the moment okay I was going to

[1:29:53] say I didn't know I was on the board

[1:29:55] itself but okay good enough thank you

[1:29:58] just had to state it sooner or later

[1:29:59] where I was at

[1:30:01] >> any dis anybody else over there have any discussion from the members

[1:30:09] >> I have another question I would like to

[1:30:11] just talk a little bit more about this

[1:30:15] about alternatives that are possible

[1:30:18] that might be helpful is can we do that

[1:30:20] informally or is this always supposed to

[1:30:22] be like open you know in a public forum

[1:30:26] >> has to be in a public forum by law

[1:30:28] >> yeah okay

[1:30:29] >> it's called the open meetings act

[1:30:31] >> so so yes all right and and I'm aware of

[1:30:33] that and I was just curious so the

[1:30:35] alternative of the city deciding that

[1:30:38] maybe because they've begged the

[1:30:40] question with their request there needs

[1:30:42] to be better action taken about the

[1:30:45] management of billboards at all in the

[1:30:48] city. I mean, if the city intends to do

[1:30:51] what I think the ordinance is about,

[1:30:53] which is in, you know, encourage

[1:30:56] development, encourage, you know, what

[1:30:59] this town is probably going to be built

[1:31:00] on, which is tourism. um that this

[1:31:05] situation we make an action here that

[1:31:08] could sort of further cement something

[1:31:10] that the city we don't even want which

[1:31:14] is that many formal billboards along

[1:31:16] that road in town and

[1:31:18] >> I think you're you're correct in fact

[1:31:19] we're we're charged with not having that

[1:31:22] authority or power we we can't alter the

[1:31:26] u some substance of the zoning we can

[1:31:28] only make some variances and

[1:31:30] >> we can make recommendations

[1:31:32] planning commission or staff.

[1:31:34] >> Um

[1:31:35] >> because we've done that before in

[1:31:37] >> regards to the definition of a hotel and

[1:31:40] >> Yep.

[1:31:40] >> which means that this decisioning here

[1:31:43] if it were to be about some things need

[1:31:45] to be eliminated or should they be

[1:31:47] before we agree to this. That's beyond

[1:31:49] our our charge as a variance board.

[1:31:53] >> Yeah. We're the zoning board of appeals.

[1:31:56] >> Um and we're to some degree bound by the

[1:32:00] four walls of the zoning ordinance.

[1:32:02] >> Yes.

[1:32:03] >> Um we're given some latitude about

[1:32:04] making some decisions that are in

[1:32:07] fairness and and make reasonable sense.

[1:32:10] Um but no, if there's a need for a

[1:32:14] change in the actual ordinance that

[1:32:16] belongs to the planning

[1:32:19] >> planning and and zoning board

[1:32:20] >> or to take other action beyond what a

[1:32:23] variance would be to a zoning.

[1:32:26] >> Okay. Our our role is primarily

[1:32:31] interpretive of definition and actions.

[1:32:34] >> And I appreciate that. So just

[1:32:35] >> when when when staff does something and

[1:32:39] somebody agreed comes to us and says

[1:32:41] they disagree with how they viewed that

[1:32:44] >> phrase, it's up to us to decide.

[1:32:47] >> Yeah.

[1:32:48] >> Which to some degree is what we were

[1:32:50] doing today.

[1:32:51] >> And in in retrospect, the fact that we

[1:32:54] only meet very infrequently suggests

[1:32:57] that the system and the ordinances are working working well. People

[1:33:02] understand what has to happen, what they

[1:33:04] need to do and can

[1:33:08] navigate that without a lot of conflict.

[1:33:11] Um, I do feel that folks who have a

[1:33:15] piece of property and are well on their

[1:33:17] way to doing something with it and have

[1:33:19] a business and all the rest of that um

[1:33:22] may not be

[1:33:25] um well treated by decisions that

[1:33:30] happened before the ordinances may have

[1:33:32] been altered or by other property

[1:33:35] owners. Um, but I'm not sure from the

[1:33:39] things that you've kind of shown us that

[1:33:41] you're focusing on that we have the

[1:33:45] latitude.

[1:33:45] >> Yeah. Other question like this sign

[1:33:47] itself that's sitting there. I'd like to

[1:33:50] know exactly when that was constructed.

[1:33:52] If it was constructed after 2006 or

[1:33:56] prior is it was after 2006 if the

[1:33:59] origins

[1:34:00] >> probably needs to come down. Well, what

[1:34:02] probably happened back when I was on

[1:34:05] planning back in the in the 80s and

[1:34:08] early 90s,

[1:34:10] >> we had a we had a a zoning

[1:34:12] administrator, building inspector

[1:34:15] who said, "Well, that'll be okay. We we

[1:34:17] can do that."

[1:34:19] >> Never. It wasn't until I was on the

[1:34:21] board that we were doing site plan

[1:34:22] reviews. And uh before that, oh yeah, that's almost enough. And in the

[1:34:29] back of my mind, I'm almost willing to

[1:34:31] bet if that went up after that ordinance

[1:34:34] went in effect and if Jerry was still in

[1:34:36] office down there, he did one of his Oh,

[1:34:39] that's okay. That that won't matter. I'm

[1:34:42] almost willing to bet that that could

[1:34:43] have happened, but I I can't say for

[1:34:45] sure.

[1:34:45] >> Can we get a review of

[1:34:50] >> it was approved by the B by the building

[1:34:52] inspector at that time. So, it was

[1:34:54] >> it though is the question. What can we

[1:34:58] find out whether or not a the ordinance

[1:35:01] from 1999

[1:35:03] required a building permit for a

[1:35:05] billboard?

[1:35:06] >> It did for signs. You needed a sign

[1:35:09] permit.

[1:35:09] >> Was considered a sign.

[1:35:11] >> A sign at that time.

[1:35:12] >> So, can we determine whether or not a

[1:35:15] building permit was in fact pulled for

[1:35:18] it?

[1:35:20] Um,

[1:35:20] >> I can look if we have the records on.

[1:35:23] You may not be able to determine

[1:35:25] definitively whether or not there was

[1:35:27] one. The records may not exist. But if

[1:35:30] the records are good and if there was no

[1:35:34] sign permit or construction permit ever

[1:35:36] pulled for that thing and it's

[1:35:39] indeterminable when exactly it was put

[1:35:43] up.

[1:35:44] I mean granted it's 20 years after the

[1:35:47] date. Um, but perhaps I mean everything

[1:35:50] that I read in in the ordinance refers

[1:35:53] to legal nonconforming signs. If it's

[1:35:58] not legal, whether it's non-conforming

[1:36:01] or not is kind of a moot point because

[1:36:03] if it was put up illegally, it I don't

[1:36:06] know that there's a statute of

[1:36:08] limitations on something like that. Is

[1:36:10] there? Well, the issue would be whether

[1:36:12] we have standing to take exception to

[1:36:15] the mistake or whether that's uh the

[1:36:18] standing lies with the current property

[1:36:20] owner and that would be one for some

[1:36:22] legal advice to review.

[1:36:24] >> And I can see being Lamar like the

[1:36:26] situation we had looked at back in

[1:36:28] December where we were talking about

[1:36:30] those signs, the lighted sign,

[1:36:33] >> the lighted sign,

[1:36:34] >> the um

[1:36:35] >> they were willing to take the city to

[1:36:37] court.

[1:36:37] >> Oh, sure.

[1:36:38] >> So, they'd be willing to fight it

[1:36:39] anyway. There's there's assume that they

[1:36:41] have some concern about that. They're

[1:36:43] what do they bill about $2 billion a

[1:36:45] year in advertising and

[1:36:46] >> make a profit of half a bill on that.

[1:36:49] >> They're they're not going to be real.

[1:36:51] >> They're not they're not afraid.

[1:36:52] >> Yeah. They're not going to be real wild

[1:36:53] about losing a piece of property. But if

[1:36:55] it was improperly done, the they uh the

[1:36:59] person who has standing to complain

[1:37:01] about that could bring such an action.

[1:37:03] >> Right. I'm not saying that's the city.

[1:37:05] Uh, we don't know who that is because I

[1:37:07] don't know who I we don't know the

[1:37:09] underlying facts yet at this point.

[1:37:11] >> I'm just saying as part of your review,

[1:37:13] can you look for that

[1:37:15] >> just to see if it's if it is legally not

[1:37:17] performing.

[1:37:18] >> It wouldn't be imprudent to have someone

[1:37:20] from legal take a look at that very um

[1:37:23] theory, if you will, because uh it could

[1:37:26] come back from some people who just

[1:37:28] left.

[1:37:30] >> The city didn't have jurisdiction over

[1:37:32] building permits at that time. Was it

[1:37:34] the county?

[1:37:35] >> State of Michigan.

[1:37:36] >> Oh,

[1:37:37] >> they have records.

[1:37:39] >> If we could

[1:37:40] >> way back

[1:37:42] proper terms, we may be able to

[1:37:44] >> you'd have I don't know if you'd have to

[1:37:45] foyer the state for some for a building

[1:37:47] record in your jurisdiction, do you?

[1:37:51] >> Yeah. But it it would be a

[1:37:53] >> they would know. I mean, that would be a

[1:37:54] pretty demonstrable

[1:37:56] set of facts right there.

[1:37:58] >> Yeah. Essentially, I need a permit

[1:38:00] number

[1:38:02] or a builder's name record,

[1:38:07] >> not a property owner name.

[1:38:10] >> And did I understand again you're

[1:38:11] standing here for for whom?

[1:38:14] >> I'm the building official for the city.

[1:38:16] >> You're the building official. Well,

[1:38:17] there we go. Then you do have standing

[1:38:18] to go and look at those things.

[1:38:21] >> Have

[1:38:22] >> I've I've tried to get records from the

[1:38:24] state. If you don't get have a permit

[1:38:26] number

[1:38:28] or a builder's

[1:38:31] identification or name,

[1:38:34] >> what about asking Lamar?

[1:38:35] >> Yeah. Just thinking,

[1:38:36] >> well, I would I would suggest that if

[1:38:38] you said to Lamar, "Oh, by the way, we

[1:38:40] need the permit." Yes.

[1:38:41] >> For it to make this decision, they're probably not going to be real

[1:38:44] happy to do that.

[1:38:45] >> No.

[1:38:46] >> But if they don't provide it,

[1:38:48] >> then can't you state? And then now

[1:38:49] you're getting into litigation. But then

[1:38:52] none exists. So,

[1:38:53] >> we will gather whatever records we have

[1:38:55] for the report.

[1:38:58] >> And it wasn't Lamar that put it up.

[1:39:01] >> No, probably not.

[1:39:02] >> It was uh

[1:39:03] >> but there should be some reference to

[1:39:04] the the the

[1:39:07] piece of property itself that has been

[1:39:08] >> it was TLC Properties, a Louisiana

[1:39:11] Corporation.

[1:39:12] >> That's basically Lamar Lamar Louis

[1:39:16] Corporation. Okay.

[1:39:16] >> That's their subsidiary

[1:39:19] companies. Yeah. Yeah. They don't look

[1:39:21] at it that way.

[1:39:22] >> Yeah, they they

[1:39:23] >> But I I think it would be not improper

[1:39:27] for us to ask them to justify that they

[1:39:29] constructed it. When did you construct

[1:39:31] it and with what permit?

[1:39:34] >> But if there's an easement or some some

[1:39:37] long-term granting of right, there

[1:39:40] should be documents that underly that.

[1:39:43] And even if we have to ask Little

[1:39:45] Caesars or whoever it was that was there

[1:39:47] earlier, there should be some record, I

[1:39:48] think.

[1:39:50] And I'm just thinking as a city changes,

[1:39:52] >> well, yeah,

[1:39:53] >> a city gets different um leverage, so to

[1:39:56] speak, of of what can continue to exist,

[1:40:00] maybe was fine 20, 30 years ago and no

[1:40:03] longer applies.

[1:40:04] >> Well, and we we're obviously as a city

[1:40:07] very concerned about that whole stretch

[1:40:08] of waterfront because it is a key asset

[1:40:11] to the city and it's going to underly a

[1:40:13] lot of things that can happen

[1:40:15] in the city. My little anecdote when I

[1:40:17] drove through this town the first time

[1:40:19] ever, which was about 12 years ago, we

[1:40:22] came from the north. And my first

[1:40:24] impression of this town was what a dump.

[1:40:29] And I did not appreciate the town at all

[1:40:32] till I started looking more seriously

[1:40:35] for a place to move to buy property and

[1:40:37] move to. and that northern and as the

[1:40:41] cities and the states investing in that

[1:40:43] road that that is such a good effort for

[1:40:46] this town to beautify that whole

[1:40:50] way in from the north and the fact that

[1:40:52] those billboards now sit like they do is

[1:40:55] going to look even weirder in in the

[1:40:58] future. I mean something's going to I

[1:41:00] think it needs addressing. That's I

[1:41:02] guess what I'm getting at. It seems like

[1:41:03] it's bigger than the board uh zoning

[1:41:06] variance as to what's going on gone on

[1:41:09] with those build.

[1:41:10] >> So this the city has

[1:41:12] >> that sign is going to have to put a lot longer pole on it because if you use

[1:41:17] the pole it's on right now the top of

[1:41:19] the sign won't get above the edge of the

[1:41:21] curb.

[1:41:21] >> Oh depending because it's on the hill.

[1:41:23] >> It's on the bottom of the hill.

[1:41:24] >> It's supposed to be on the bottom of the

[1:41:25] hill.

[1:41:25] >> Yeah.

[1:41:25] Again, I don't know if the

[1:41:27] Milwaukee people understand how that

[1:41:29] could affect, you know,

[1:41:31] >> one one other consideration, too, in

[1:41:33] addition to checking for um for a

[1:41:36] building permit and or any kind of a

[1:41:38] zoning application from that time period

[1:41:41] to fix whether or not

[1:41:43] it it's it's a legal non-conforming

[1:41:46] sign. The other thing that that comes to

[1:41:48] my mind would be to try to find if there

[1:41:51] is a specific list of what those nine

[1:41:54] billboards are they were talking about

[1:41:57] >> that's all of it

[1:41:58] >> and

[1:41:59] >> so what what went okay sorry

[1:42:01] >> thing that I would that I just popping

[1:42:04] into my mind now

[1:42:06] >> has there been any annexation have there

[1:42:08] been any changes in the city's boundary

[1:42:12] since 2006 where they could be counting

[1:42:17] a sign that was in a different

[1:42:19] direction. Has the city annexed, I

[1:42:21] guess, is my point. Since 2006, did they

[1:42:24] count something in Filer or Manaste

[1:42:27] Township as a sign and that one didn't

[1:42:29] exist?

[1:42:30] >> You know,

[1:42:31] >> and the only annexation the city has had

[1:42:33] that my recollection, I'm not sure the

[1:42:35] date, is uh south of the golf course,

[1:42:39] >> south of 12th Street and uh west of of

[1:42:42] Cherry. That's the only thing that was

[1:42:45] been annexed out of Filer Township

[1:42:47] >> because that could affect that tally,

[1:42:49] too. But if there's no specific number

[1:42:51] list anywhere,

[1:42:53] >> you know, that's there's just a number

[1:42:55] of things that that come into play here

[1:42:57] that

[1:42:59] >> I would suggest we adjourn. We put a lot

[1:43:01] of things on the record because this is

[1:43:03] all being recorded.

[1:43:04] >> Um, which means you've got a ton of work

[1:43:06] to I don't know how you how you store

[1:43:08] that. You just keep the recording.

[1:43:11] >> Yeah.

[1:43:11] We'll have minutes but um most

[1:43:14] just action items for the most part

[1:43:16] we'll make up

[1:43:17] >> and um so I'd move we return

[1:43:20] >> support

[1:43:21] >> discussion

[1:43:23] all in favor

[1:43:24] >> I any opposed

[1:43:34] » we didn't drift too

Manistee City Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 2026-04-27

Transcript